2 

# Problem Formulation for the Environmental Fate, Ecological Risk, Endangered Species, and Drinking Water Exposure Assessments in Support of the Registration Review of Aldicarb

CAS Registry Number: 116-06-3
PC Code: 098301

DP Barcode: D398519

P

repared by:

N .E. Federoff, Wildlife Biologis t R. David Jones, Ph.D, Senior Agronomist U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs

E nvironmental Fate and Effects Division

E nvironmental Risk Branch I V 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

M

ail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460 R eviewed by: Greg Orrick, Environmental Scientist Christina Wendel, Biologist Brian Anderson, Branch Chief

April 4, 2012 

## N C H 3



## H O O

N C H CH 3



## S CH 3



## CH 33 

### T ABLE OF 

### C ONTENTS

1. Purpose ....................................................................................................................... ............. 4
2. Description of Regulatory Action ........................................................................................... 4

3. Conclusions from Previous Assessments................................................................................ 4

3.1. Ecological Risk Assessments ........................................................................................... 4

3.2. Drinking Water Exposure Assessments ........................................................................... 6

3.3. Clean Water Act Programs ............................................................................................... 8

3.3.1. Aquatic Life Criteria and Aquatic Life Benchmarks ................................................ 8

3.3.2. Impaired Water Bodies ............................................................................................. 9

4. Stressor Source and Distribution ............................................................................................ 9

4.1. Pesticidal Mechanism of Action .................................................................................... 10

4.2. Overview of Pesticide Use and Usage ........................................................................... 10

4.3. Environmental Fate and Transport ................................................................................. 15

5. Receptors...................................................................................................................... ......... 20
5.1. Effects to Terrestrial Species .......................................................................................... 21

5.1.1. Birds and Mammals ................................................................................................ 21

5.1.2. Beneficial Insects .................................................................................................... 22

5.1.3. Plants ....................................................................................................................... 22
5.2. Effects to Aquatic Species .............................................................................................. 22

5.2.1. Parent Aldicarb Toxicity ............................................................................................ 22

5.2.1.1. Fish .......................................................................................................................... 22
5.2.1.2. Aquatic Invertebrates .............................................................................................. 23

5.2.1.3. Aquatic Plants ......................................................................................................... 24

5.3. Degradate Toxicity ......................................................................................................... 24

5.4. Incident Database Review .............................................................................................. 24

6. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk ............................................................................................. 27

7. Assessment Endpoints .......................................................................................................... 27
8. Conceptual Model .............................................................................................................. ... 28
8.1. Risk Hypothesis.............................................................................................................. 2 9
9. Analysis Plan ................................................................................................................. ....... 30
9.1. Measures of Exposure .................................................................................................... 31

9.2. Measures of Effect ......................................................................................................... 32

9.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects ............................................................................... 33

9.4. Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessment Methods ................................................... 34

9.5. Endangered Species Assessments .................................................................................. 34

9.6. Drinking Water Assessment ........................................................................................... 35

10. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program .......................................................................... 35

11. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps ........................................................................... 36

11.1. Ecological Effects ....................................................................................................... 40

12. References .................................................................................................................... ..... 41 Appendix A. Ecological Effects Data .......................................................................................... 604 1. Purpose

The purpose of this problem formulation is to pr ovide an understanding of the environmental fate and ecological effects of the registered uses of aldicarb. Aldicarb is an insecticide, acaricide and nematicide in the carbamate group of cholinesterase inhibitors . This problem formulation provides a plan for analyzing data relevant to aldicarb and for conducting environmental fate and ecological risk, endangered spec ies, and drinking water assessments for all current, active registrations. Additionall y, this problem formul ation is intended to identify data gaps, uncertainties, and potential assumptions used to address those uncertainties, relative to characterizing the ecological risk associated with the registered use of aldicarb.

2. Description of Regulatory Action

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 mandated the EPA to implement a new program for assessing the risks of pesticides, i.e ., registration review 1 . All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States must be registered by the Agency. The decision to register a pesticide is based on
the consideration of scientific data and other factors showing that it will not cause unreasonable risks to human health, workers, or the environm ent when used as dire cted on product labeling. The registration review program is intended to ensure that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices ch ange, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory
standard of no unreas onable adverse effects to human hea lth and the environm ent. Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through the new registration review program, the Agency periodical ly reevaluates pesticides to ensure that as change occurs, products in the ma rketplace can be used safely.

As part of the implementation of the new registration review progr am pursuant to Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungici de and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Agency is beginning its
evaluation to determine whether use of aldicarb continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. This problem formulation for the environmental fate and ecological risk assessments in support of the registration review is intended for the initial docket opening, which starts the public phase of the review process.

3. Conclusions from Previous Assessments

3.1. Ecological Risk Assessments

In September 2007, the Agency issued a Reregist ration Eligibility Deci sion (RED) for aldicarb ( http://www.epa.gov/oppsrr d1/REDs/aldicarb_red.pdf ). Key conclusions on exposure and risks to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife as well as rele vant data gaps as they relate to these two assessments are listed below. RQs using alte rnative application ra tes and incorporation efficiencies ( http://www.regulations.gov/#!doc umentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163-0156 and http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDe tail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163-0203) were
calculated later under ad dendums to the RED document. Thes e RQs took into account the 99% soil incorporation rates of the specialized applica tion equipment that is used to apply aldicarb.

1 ( http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/ )5 Note that a number of the uses in the assessments described below ( e.g. potatoes and cotton) are no longer registered.

Exposure and Risk to Terrestrial Organisms:

 The cotton scenario (4.05 lbs ai/A; banded side dress, 1 application ) poses the highest
use risk in the terrestrial environment to mamma ls and birds due to al dicarb levels in soil (highest acute RQ for small birds = 6400), followed by potato, sugar beet, peanuts and dry beans (RQ for small birds = 3000, 2800, 2800, 2600, respectively).

 The acute risk, acute restrict ed use, and acute endangered species LOCs for birds and mammals are exceeded for all labeled crops (cotton, dry beans, sorghum, peanuts, potatoes, soybeans, sugar beets, sweet potatoes, citrus, pecans, ornamentals) due to
aldicarb levels in soil at both maximum allowed label rates (1.05 to 10.05 lbs ai/A) and average use rates (0.6 to 3.1 lbs ai/A).

 Acute levels of concern are consistently exce eded by a factor of greater than 100 and are frequently exceeded by more than 1000 for birds and mammals.

 Granules left exposed on the surface appear to be the main source of exposure, but other
sources such as residues of aldicarb ta ken up by plants and soil invertebrates ( e.g ., earthworms) may also serve as a means of exposure.

 A single granule of TEMIK ® 15G can kill a small bird or mammal.

 Reproductive effects to birds at sub-lethal levels could not be assessed because of the lack of reproductive studies with aldicarb or itsdegradates. Due in part to high acute toxicity, it has been difficult to design an experiment that utilizes a dose low enough not to acutely intoxicate adult birds.

 Reduction in seedling emergence and vegetativ e vigor to non-target terrestrial plants
from runoff could not be assessed because of the lack of toxicity data.

Exposure and Risk to Aquatic Organisms

 The cotton scenario (4.05 lbs a i/A; 1 application) poses the hi ghest use risk in the aquatic environment to aquatic invertebrates and fish due to estimated levels of aldicarb and its degradates in surface water from runoff (hi ghest acute and chronic RQs for freshwater invertebrates = 1.4 and 26.6, respectively), followed by pecans, soybeans, citrus, and potato (acute and chronic RQs of 0.60, 0.36, 0.15, 0.07 and 11.40, 6.76, 2.80, 1.40, respectively).

 There is acute risk for both freshwater and es tuarine/marine fish and invertebrates for all of the registered uses with the exception of potatoes for freshwater fish and invertebrates
and estuarine/marine fish.

 Based on the use of an estimated NOAEC for chronic effects in fr eshwater fish, the
chronic level of concern is also exceeded for freshwater fish (larval and juvenile survival) for cotton, pecan, and soybean use patterns.6  Based on the use of an estimated NOAEC for reproductive effects in estuarine/marine fish, the chronic level of concern is exceed ed for estuarine/marine fish for all crop
scenarios.

 Aldicarb residues are most likely to exceed levels of concern for fish and aquatic
invertebrates in low-order streams because these streams are dominated by base flow conditions (where 100% of stream flow cons ists of discharged ground water), and most
of the toxic residues are believed to form within the subsurface (e specially within the saturated zone) and are conveyed by ground wa ter. Higher-order streams are sustained by much larger contributing land areas, so there should be a greater dilution effect.

 In addition to risk-based exposure estimates from modeling, there were also exceedances of the Agency levels of concern based on surface water residue monitoring data.

3.2. Drinking Water Exposure Assessments

There have been seven previous drinking water exposure assessmen ts for aldicarb. In addition, aldicarb was a component of the cumulative risks of all the N-methyl carbamate pesticides which were considered in two assessments (H ealth Effects Division, 2005; OPP, 2007).

The first aldicarb drinking water assessment was completed in 1999 and provided estimates of aldicarb in ground water based on monitoring data which had been summarized and analyzed by the registrant and Tier 1 estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) for surface water (Dutta, 1999). The maximum surface water EDWC as calculated by GENEEC was 88.5 μg·L -1

. Maximum concentrations in ground water by region ranged from no detections in the Southwest to 187.2 μg·L -1 in New England.

The first assessment was updated in Sept ember 1999 (DP 247759). The same ground water estimates were used in the upda te, but Tier II estimates for su rface water were estimated for cotton, potatoes, and citrus. Citrus had the highe st EDWCs with a 1-in-10-year peak EDWC of 2.3 μg·L -1

.

The next drinking water assessment was in th e first version of the EFED RED chapter for aldicarb (DP 246901). EDWCs were calculated for citrus in Fl orida, potatoes in Idaho, and cotton in Mississippi. In this assessment, the highest 1-in-10-year pe ak EDWC was for Idaho potatoes with 17.4 μg·L -1 . The ground water assessment was the same as that presented in the previous assessments.

The drinking water assessment in the 2003 EFED RED chapter was updated in 2005 (DP 316754). This update included an assessment of su rface-water source drinking water using the total toxic residues method (TTR) for estimating th e exposure from aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone combined. For surface water, 3 crops were assessed: cotton, potatoes, and citrus. Cotton had the highest 1-in -10-year peak EDWC with 14.6 μg·L -1 . For ground water, Tier
1 estimates with SCI-GROW were calculated for th e same 3 crops, with ci trus having the highest EDWC at 4.95 μg·L -1 . The ground water monitoring data were reassessed and some newer data were added to previous assessments. These newe r data showed that c oncentrations in ground7 water in excess of 20 μg·L -1 were still being found in the early 1990s.

The drinking water exposure assessment for aldicarb was updated in 2006 (DP 333309). This
assessment included aldicarb sulfoxide and sulfone as well as parent aldicarb. This was done to be consistent with the N-methyl carbamate cumulative assessment. Typical use rates were
assessed rather than maximum label rates. Both surface and ground water s ources were assessed. A Tier 2 simulation modeling approach was us ed for both ground water and surface water. Peanuts, cotton, citrus and potat oes were the uses assessed. For ground water, well setback distances were estimated using a high-end esti mate of lateral ground water movement. The maximum EDWCs were for citrus in Florida for surface water with 10.2 μg·L -1 for a 30 year maximum concentration and for peanuts in Georgia for ground water with 6.5 μg·L -1 for a 30 year maximum concentration with a 30 ft buffer in place around the well.

A drinking water exposure assessment was conduc ted for a new use of aldicarb regarding expanding its use on potatoes in 6 additonal states, Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyom ing (DP 348436). This assessment determined that exposures in surface water and ground water would be less than previous assessments of potato use based
on use restrictions and the nature of the soils and weather patterns in the new use states.

An updated drinking water assessm ent for the use of aldicarb on tobacco was performed in 2009 (DP 299881). This assessment corrected an error in the incorporation de pth from a previous assessment. The reported 1-in-10-peak EDWC for this simulation was 0.71 μg·L -1

.

Aldicarb was considered as part of two cumulativ e risk assessments for the N-methyl carbamate insecticides. A preliminary assessment (Health Effects Division, 2005) included aldicarb, carbaryl, carbofuran, formetenate, methomyl , oxamyl, propoxur, methiocarb, pirimicarb, and
thiodicarb. The assessment looked at three routes of exposure; dietary from food, dietary from drinking water, and re sidential exposure.

The drinking water component of the prelimin ary assessment focused on areas where combined N-methyl carbamate (NMC) exposur e is likely to be among the hi ghest within each region as a result of total NMC usage and vulnerability of drinking water sources. Th is analysis was based on a probabilistic modeling approach that considers the full range of data. Exposures in drinking
water to individuals were inco rporated into the cu mulative exposure asse ssment on a regionaland source water-specific basis ( i.e ., ground water and surface water, by region). The regional drinking water exposure assessments are inte nded to represent exposures from vulnerable drinking water sources resulting from typical NM C usage and reflect seasonal variations as well as regional variations in cropping and NMC use. In most of the co untry, NMC residues indrinking water sources are at levels that are not likely to contribute substantially to the multipathway cumulative exposure. However, it wa s found that NMC residues estimated for vulnerable private wells in some areas of Flor ida (primarily along the central ridge) and the southeastern coastal plain are major cont ributors to the cumulative NMC exposures.

The revised N-methyl carbamate cumulative as sessment (OPP, 2007) reflected some changes due to updates in the fate and transport data for some compounds due to the completion of the single chemical assessments, but also reflected ch anges in use patterns that had been implementd8 or were expected to occur as a result of the re registration process. Thes e included restrictions on
the use of aldicarb in Florida an d the Atlantic Coastal Plain to protect ground water, the expected
cancellation of carbofuran and th e restrictions of the use of other N-methyl carbamates. The
methods used in the revised assessment were essentially the same as those used in the preliminary assessment. This assessment that cumu lative risks were below levels of concern if carbofuran was cancelled and certain uses for pe sticides other than aldicarb were removed ( e.g., methomyl on grapes).

3.3. Clean Water Act Programs

3.3.1. Aquatic Life Criteria and Aquatic Life Benchmarks

The Clean Water Act requires the Agency to publis h water quality criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and ex tent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare that might be expected from the presen ce of pollutants in any body of water, including ground water. While these recommended criter ia do not, in themselves, impose any requirements, states and authorized tribes can us e them to develop water quality standards. An Aquatic Life Ambient Water Qu ality Criteria document has no t been published for aldicarb 2

.

The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) publishes a quatic life benchmarks for freshwater species based on toxicity values for the most sensitive species from the most recent risk assessments. For aldicarb, aquatic life benchmarks have been published 3 . Acute benchmarks have been established for fish (26 μg·L -1 ), invertebrates (10 μg·L -1 ) and aquatic plants (> 5000 μg·L -1 ),
while chronic benchmarks have been established for fish (0.46 μg·L -1 ) and invertebrates (1 μg·L 1 ). The chronic benchmark is based on the acute t oxicity value (which was lower than the lowest available chronic toxicity value), and therefor e may underestimate chronic toxicity. In addition,
acute benchmarks have been establishe d for the aldicarb sulfoxide (3570 μg·L -1 for fish and 21.5 μg·L -1 for invertebrates) and aldicarb sulfone (21,000 μg·L -1 for fish and 140 μg·L -1 for invertebrates) degradates.

Table 3-1. OPP Freshwater Aquatic Life Benc hmarks for Aldicarb (in μg/L).

Chemical Fish Invertebrates Vascular Plants
Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute
aldicarb 26 0.46 10 1 >5000

aldicarb sulfoxide 3570 NS 1 21.5 NS NS

aldicarb sulfone 21,000 NS 140 NS NS

1 NS – not specified. There were no benc hmarks published for these categories.

The California Environmental Protection Agenc y. (CDPR) has a no specific water quality performance goal for protecting aquatic life for aldicarb or its degradates 4

.

2 http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/

3 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders /aquatic_life_benchmark.htm#benchmarks

4 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_iss ues/programs/water_quality_goals/9 3.3.2. Impaired Water Bodies

There are currently no water bodie s which have been found to be impaired by aldicarb or its degradates under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act 5

.

4. Stressor Source and Distribution

Chemical and Physical Properties

Common Name: aldicarb Chemical Name: 2-methyl-2(methylthio)propionaldehyde O- (methylcarbamoyl)oxime
CAS No. 116-06-3
PC Code: 098301 SMILES code C(C)(C)(C=NOC(=O)NC)SC
Molecular Formula: C 7 H 14 N 2 O 2 S Molecular Weight: 190.2 g/mol Density: 0.565 g/cm 3 Melting Point: 96.5o C Boiling Point: decomposes above 100 o C Water Solubility: 5191 mg/L (pH 7, 20 o C) Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient (K OW ): 11.5 Formulations: granules ( e.g ., active ingredient 15.0%, Inert ingredients 85.0%)

5 http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation_cy.cause_detail_303d?p_cause_group_id=88510 Figure 4-1. Chemical structure of aldicarb and its oxidative transformation products

4.1. Pesticidal Mechanism of Action

Aldicarb (2-methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyd e O-(methylcarbamoyl)oxime), also known by the trade name Temik, is a granular pesticide that was first registered for use on cotton in 1970. Aldicarb is a systemic insecticide, acaricide, and nematicide. It is a pote nt cholinesterase (ChE) inhibitor causing inhibition of erythrocyte acetylcho linesterase as well as plasma butyryl ChE by binding to the active site of the enzyme. Acetylcholinesterase is an enzyme necessary for the degradation of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACh) and subsequent cessation of synaptic transmission. Inhibition of these enzymes in animals ( i.e . terrestrial and aqua tic invertebrates, fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals) resu lts in the accumulation of ACh at cholinergic nerve endings and continual nerve stimulation leading to death.

4.2. Overview of Pesticide Use and Usage

There are currently two end use product labels for aldicarb, Temik 15G (Reg No. 263-330) and Meymik 15G (Reg. No. 87895-1). Temik is bein g voluntarily cancelled as of December 14, 2014 and the product cannot be used after Decembe r 31, 2018. Meymik has an essentially identical label and was recently registered in December, 2011. There are 6 crops listed for use of aldicarb on the Meymik and Temik labels: cotton, dry beans, peanuts, soybeans, sugar beets, and sweet potatoes. Table 4.1 lists the use pattern of maxi mum exposure for the current uses of aldicarb. The remaining use on these labels reflect label amendments to remove uses that previously exceeded risk thresholds as was determined during reregistration.

Aldicarb cannot be applied in Connecticut, Main e, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, or Wisconsin. In addition, it is restricted from
use in Del Norte and Humboldt Counties in California and Curry C ounty, Oregon. Aldicarb can 

### Aldicarb

Aldicarb Sulfone Aldicarb Sulfoxide C H 3 S C C H N C H 3

O C N C H 3

H O H 3 C

C H 3 S C C H N C H 3

O C N C H 3

H O

O H 3 C

C H 3 S C C H N C H 3

O C N C H 3

H O H 3 C

O O11 only be applied between March 1 and September 1 in California. There are also restrictions on
the use of aldicarb around drinki ng water wells. In all cases, application cannot be made within 50 ft of a drinking water well, but more stringent c onditions often apply. In most cases, these
restrictions are based on the presence of a ‘vulnerable soil’ and the nature of the well. A vulnerable soil is defined on the label as having a loamy sand or sand texture and a subsoil with less than 2% organic matter on average in the upper 12 inches. Restrictions around the well are necessary if the water ta ble is less than 25 ft deep, unless the well is cased to less than 100 ft or to 30 feet below the top of the water table. If the user does not know th at the water table is greater than 25 feet, the applicator should assu me a water table less than 25 feet deep. The following state and use restrictions depend upon th e vulnerable soil and well descriptions. In Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina, if a ‘split application’ is made (that is, one application at planting and a sec ond side dress applica tion is made after emergence), then there must be a 1100 ft buffer in place around drinking water wells. In these same states, a split application made to cotton with vulnerable soil and wells require s a 1000 ft buffer. If only a single application is made either at-plant or post-emergent then the wellhead buffer is 700 ft. For all uses in Iowa, Illinois, I ndiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mont ana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wyoming, a 500 ft bu ffer is required around vulnerable wells in vulnerable soils. In these states, vulnerable soils are defined to include sandy loams, loamy sands and sands. In Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Ke ntucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tenne see, Virginia, and West Virgin ia, a 300 ft buffer is required
around vulnerable wells in vulnerable soils. For all other uses in Florida (o ther than peanuts and cotton) a 300 ft buffer is required around all dr inking water wells. For all uses, applications cannot be made within 50 ft of any drinking water well.

The Meymik label also has a number of precau tionary label statements for the protection of
wildlife and water resources. The statements for the pr otection of wildlife are:

“This pesticide is extremely toxic to bi rds and other wildlife . Birds feeding on exposed granules may be killed. Cover or immedieately soil incorporate granules spilled during loading, at row ends, or elsewhere to ensure the granules are completely covered with soil.

“This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Run-off from treated areas may be hazardous to fish in neighboring areas. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal area below the mean high water mark. Do not contami nate water when disposing equipment
washwaters”.

“This product is potentially toxic to honey bees through translocated residues in pollen and nectar if application is made during bloom.”

There is also additional language re garding the Endangered Species Act:

“Under the Endangered Species Act, it is a Federal Offense to use any pesticide
in a manner that results in the death of a member of an endangered species.”12 “This Act protects Attwater’s Prairie Chicken in the Texas counties of Aransas, Austin, Brazoria, Colorado, Galveston, Goliad, Harris, Refugio, and Victoria.”

“Prior to making applications in these count ies, the user must determine that this species is not located in or immediately adjacent to the area to be treated. If the user is in doubt whether or not the above named endangered species may be affected, he should contact either the regi onal U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Office (Endangered Species Specialist) or personnel of the State Fish and Game Office.”

Precautionary language for the protection of groundwater is:

“Aldicarb is known to leach thro ugh soil into ground wa ter under certain conditions. Use of this chemical in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow, may result in ground water contamination. Apply this product only as specified on this label. Read the use directions and the appended Environmental Precautions and Soil Type Restrictions Tables prior to making applications.”

“This product is readily decomposed to harmless residues under most use conditions. However, a combination of permeable and acidic soil conditions, moderate to heavy irrigation and/or rain fall, use of 20 or more pounds per acre, and soil temperatures below 50o F (10o C) at application time tend to reduce degradation and promote movement of residues into ground water.”

Table 4-1 Labeled Aldicarb Us e Pattern of Maximum Exposure 1

.

Use Max. Single App. Rate (lbs a.i./A) Max. No. of App. per Year Min. Reapp. Interval (A) Max.
Annual App. Rate (lbs a.i./A) Application Method

Peanuts 4 1.5 2 NS 2 2.55 at-plant: incorporated band or
T-band post-emergent: banded over foliage

Cotton 5 2.1 2 21 d 3.15 at-plant: in furrow and T-band post-emergent: in furrow

Sugar Beets 6 4.95 3 NS 4.95 at-plant: incorporated band post-emergent: incorporated
side band

Dry Beans 7 2.1 1 NA 3 2.1 at-plant: in furrow
Soybeans 8 1.05 1 NA 1.05 at-plant: T-band

Sweet Potatoes 9 3 1 NA 3 pre-plant or at-plant: band covered by hilling 1) Additional language for ground water protection are discussed in the text.13 2) NS: not specified 3) NA: not applicable 4) Post-emergent applications must be irrigated immediately after application. Post-emergent applications must be made to dry foliage. At-plant applications are restricted to 1.05 lb-ai/acre. Post-emergent applications are restricted to Alab ama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia. 5) Second application is restricted to 0.75 lb and must be placed in furrow at least 2 inches deep. Applications must be between March 1 and September 1 in California. 6) Use on sugar beets is restricted to California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. Applications must be made within 60 days of planting. 7) Applications to dry beans are restricted to Co lorado, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Michigan. 8) Use on soybeans is restricted to Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. 9) Use on sweet potatoes is restricted to Louisiana and Mississippi. Application must be made with positive displacement applicators.

Cotton. There is a special local needs registration ( 24c) for aldicarb use on cotton in the state of California that allows up to 2.1 lb·acre -1 for a second side dress application and 3.15 lb·acre -1 total to be applied per year. For other states, th e side dress application is limited to 0.75 lb·acre -1

and the maximum seasonal rate is 1.8 lb·acre -1 . In either case, two appl ications can be made per season to cotton with the first application made at -plant, in-furrow with the requirement that the granules in the furrow be immediately covered with soil by mechanical means. Side dress applications are to be made 3 weeks after planti ng to first bloom (24c) or first squaring (Section 3 label). Side dress applications are to be to a de pth of 2 to 3 inches in a furrow 6 to 10 inches on
one or both sides of the the row. The label restri ctions include a note to deep-disk any spills at row ends or elsewhere to ensure the granules ar e covered with a layer of soil. Applications in
California are restricted to between March 1 and September 1. Specific restrictions for applications to cotton around drinki ng water wells are discussed above.

Dry Beans. While ‘dry beans’ can be used to descri be a large number of legumes, in most cases
it refers to the mature fruit of Phaseolus vulgaris , the common edible bean ( e.g., kidney bean, red bean, black bean, navy bean, etc. ). It does not include the use on the same crop when they are picked immature ( e.g., green beans, wax beans, pole beans, or snap beans). The use of aldicarb on dry beans is restricted to Colorado, Ore gon, Washington, Idaho, and Michigan. Only one application can be made per year at up to 2.1 lb·acre -1 . Applications must be made at-plant either in the seed furrow or in a separate furrow 2 to 3 inches deep to the side of the seed furrow and covered with soil by mechanical means. The la bel restrictions include a note to immediately deep-disk any spills at row ends or elsewhere to ensure the granul es are covered with a layer of
soil.

Peanuts. Either one or two applica tions of aldicarb can be made to peanuts. However, two applications and applications not made at pl anting can only be made in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas and Vi rginia. At-plant applications can be made either in-furrow or in a T-band over the open seed furrow. In either case the label states to cover immediately with soil by mechanical means. At-plant applications can also be made as a 6 to 12 inch band which is mechanically incorporated fro m 2 to 4 inches in depth into which the peanuts are subsequently planted. Post-eme rgent applications are to be ma de at or just prior to peg initiation (when the peanuts start to enter the ground) but no late r than 40 days after emergence and prior to the last cultivation. At-plant appl ications can be made at up to 1.05 lb·acre -1 while the maximum post-emergent application rate is 1.5 lb·acre -1 . The seasonal maximum application
is 2.55 lb·acre -1 . A second application cannot be made to Spanish peanuts and other short-season14 varieties that do not have at least 90 days be tween pegging and harvest. The label restrictions include a note to immediately deep-disk any spills at row ends or elsewhere to ensure the granules are covered w ith a layer of soil.

Soybeans. Applications of aldicarb to soybeans can only be made in four states: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Only one a pplication can be made per year at planting at
1.5 lb·acre -1 for control of Mexican bean beetle, th rips, three-cornered alfalfa hopper and nematodes. Application can be made in-furrow or as a T-band 4 to 6 inches wide across the open seed furrow. In either case, the label says th at the aldicarb must be immediately covered by
mechanical means. The label restrictions include a note to immediately deep-disk any spills at row ends or elsewhere to ensure the gra nules are covered with a layer of soil.

Figure 4-2. Estimated National Usage of Aldicarb from 1999 to 2002 (USGS, 2011).

Sugar Beets. Applications of aldicarb to sugar beets can only be made in California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. Applications in California can only be made between March 1 and September 1. The maximum a nnual application rate is 4.2
lb·acre -1 in California and 4.95 lb·acre -1 in all other states. No more than three applications can be15 made per year, one application at planting, a nd two post-emergent applications. The maximum single application rate at -plant is 2.1 lb·acre -1 in California and 4.95 lb·acre -1 in other states. The maximum single application rate for post- emergence applications is 2.1 lb·acre -1 in California
and 3 lb·acre -1 in other states. For control of nematodes, applications can be made up to a week before planting in a band 4 to 6 inches wide whic h is immediately incorporated. Planting is then done into the incorporated band. Alternatively, the gr anules can be drilled in a row 3 to 4 inches deep and three inches to the side of the seed row if furrow irrigation is employed for seed germination. For aphid control, granules can be placed in the seedline if the application does not
exceed 1.05 lb-ai·acre -1 . Otherwise, the granules should be drilled 1 to 3 inches below the seedline. For sugar beet root maggot control, gr anules can be applied in a band 2 to 3 inches wide over the seed row and immediately incorpor ated, or, if furrow irri gation is employed for seed germination, granules can be drilled in a ro w 2 inches deep 2 inches from the seed furrow. Post-emergent applications are to be made on both sides of the plant row and immediately covered with soil or, if furrow irriga tion is present, 4 to 8 inches on the water side of the plants at furrow depth. Post-emergent applications must be made within 30 days of planting in California and within 60 days of planting elsewhere.

Sweet Potatoes. Applications of aldicarb to sweet potat oes can only be made in Louisiana and Mississippi. Only one application can be made at planting. Applications are restricted to 3 lbai·acre -1 . Application are to be made in a 12 inch band over open furrow or on the soil surface and covered immediately during bed formation by mechanically hilling up to 8 to 10 inches. Transplants should be made in th e center of the treated zone.

The estimated use of aldicarb from 1999 to 2002 is in Figure 4-1. Note that a number of uses which were allowed in this period, namely citr us, pecans, and tobacco are no longer allowed on
the label. The bulk of aldicarb use is concentr ated along the south Atla ntic Coastal Plain, the Mississippi Delta, Texas, Californi a and the northwestern states.

The Biological and Economic Analysis Division completed a review of aldicarb usage in December 2011 (Brassard et al., 2011). This assessment did not include any data for the sweet potato use. In the period 1998 to 2010 BEAD found that the total usage of aldicarb had not changed substantially, though the use on citrus incr eased in latter half of the 2000s. In the period of 2006 to 2010, the average use of aldicarb on all crops was 3.6 million pound on 3.7 million acres. In this period, th e top crops were cotton (47%), or anges (23%), peanuts (13%), and potatoes (6%).The use on oranges and other citrus is no longer a registered use. In the same time period, the top states in terms of pounds applied are Florida ( 28%), Georgia (22%), and Texas (12%).

4.3. Environmental Fate and Transport

Aldicarb rapidly degrades to aldi carb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone – both of which are as toxic or nearly as toxic as, and are more persiste nt than, the parent compound. Other aldicarb degradates may form as well, but are substant ially less toxic and/or produced only in small amounts (<5%) and so are not included in this evaluation. Aerobic soil me tabolism is the primary dissipation route for parent aldicarb in unsaturated soil. Half-lives for parent aldicarb range from 1 to 17 days (MRIDs 00102051, 00093642, 00080820, 00093640, 00053366, 00101934,16 00035365, and 00102071). There is currently insuffici ent data to accurately estimate the formation and dissipation rates of the sulfoxide and su lfone degradates. However, the rapid oxidation of parent aldicarb to these forms and th eir substantially greater persistence than the parent, have been well documented in the published literature ( e.g ., Bull et al ., 1970; Smelt et al.

, 1979).

Laboratory studies suggest that degrad ation of all three aldicarb forms ( i.e. , parent, sulfoxide, and sulfone) to relatively non-toxic, non-carbamate residues (oximes and nitr iles) occurs slowly (t 1/2 up to 3 months) in aerobic soils, as a result of soil-catalyzed hydrolysis rather than aerobic metabolism (Lightfoot et al. , 1987; Bank and Tyrrell, 1984). Parent aldicarb is generally stable to hydrolysis, slowly hydrol yzing only at a pH of 9 (M RID 00102065). Aldicarb sulfoxide hydrolyzed more quickly (t 1/2 = 2.3 days) at pH 9 than at pH 7 (about 6% at 28 days) (MRID 00102066). Aqueous photolysis rapidly degraded aldicarb to oxime and nitrile forms ( i.e . with a

t 1/2 of four days: MRID 42498201). However, this process will only be dominant in clear, shallow waters, and will not affect residues in the subsurface.

While there is limited information on aerobic me tabolism of aldicarb in aquatic environments, a published laboratory study (Vink et al. , 1997) reported half-lives rangi ng from 70 to 173 days in
surface waters in the Netherlands. The fate of parent aldicarb under anaerobic aquatic conditions (particularly ground water) is of less c oncern than that of the degradates ( i.e. , aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone), which have been detected in ground water long afte r application of the parent chemical had ceased. Pu blished studies have reported increased de gradation rates under low redox conditions, perhaps due to catalysis by reduced metal species in these environments (Bromilow et al. , 1986). For example, Smelt et al. (1983) reported labor atory half-lives of
aldicarb sulfone and sulfoxide ranging from 2 to 131 days in Dutch subsoils under “anaerobic conditions” (310 mV), and from 84 to 1100 da ys under aerobic conditions. Given this information, it is likely that aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone, whic h degrade relatively slowly in aerobic soil (MRID 44005001), can gradua lly leach into ground water and continue to provide detectable levels of these materials over long time periods.

In published field studies, dissip ation half-lives for to tal carbamate residues in soil have ranged from approximately 0.3 to 5 months in the unsatur ated zone, and 1 to 36 months in the saturated zone (Jones and Estes, 1995), in apparent contra diction to the observation of faster degradation under anaerobic (saturated) c onditions reported above (Smelt et al., 1983). The reasons for the extreme variability in reported transformation rates (3 hours to 36 months) for aldicarb residues
under anaerobic/saturated conditions are uncertain, but may be rela ted to temperature, pH, and the presence of soils surface catalysts (Lightfoot, et al. , 1987). Also, not all saturated zones are necessarily anoxic; if they are sh allow, there can be sufficient interaction with the unsaturated zone such that the ground water may be sub-oxi c or even atmosphere-equilibrated (oxic). Monitoring data in areas with historical aldica rb contamination confirm the high persistence of
total aldicarb residues in some ground water. For example, tw enty years after cessation of aldicarb use on Long Island, New Yo rk, aldicarb sulfone and sulfoxi de were the most frequently detected pesticide compounds in ground water there in year 2000 (Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services, 2000).

The sulfoxide and sulfone degradates are nearly as mobile as the parent and are more persistent. They are generally of lower toxi city than the parent, although the sulfoxide is approximately the17 same toxicity to aquatic invertebrates (See 5.35.3). For aquatic exposures the parent aldicarb may undergo some transformation to the sulfoxide and sulfone residues between the time of application to the soil and a runoff event. A selection of environmental fate and transport properties of aldicarb are summarized in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. General Physical/Chemical Properties a nd Environmental Fate Parameters of
Aldicarb.

Parameter Value Reference
Physical/Chemical Parameters

Molecular mass 190.26 g/mol calculated
Vapor pressure (23°C) 6.25 x 10 -6 torr MRID 4822504
Henry’s Law constant (23°C) 3.0 x 10 -10 atm·m 3 /mol calculated
Water solubility (20°C) 5.191g/L MRID 4822504
Octanol-water partition coefficient ( K O W ) 11.48 MRID 4822504

Persistence in Water
Hydrolysis half-life pH 5: no significant degradation @ 30 d pH 7: no significant degradation @ 30 d pH 9: < 10% degradation of parent @ 30 d

T 1/2 < 197 d MRID 00102065

Aqueous photolysis half-life 4 d MRID 42498201

Persistence in Soil

Aerobic soil metabolism half-life parent only : NJ sandy loam: 2.3 d Houston clay: 11 d Lakeland sandy loam: 17 d Norwood silty clay: 12 d unspecified: 1 d
Illinois silt: 6 d NC loamy sand: 10 d

total toxic residues: Houston clay: 28 d Lakeland sandy loam: 47 d Norwood silty clay: 136 d unspecified: 44 d MRID 44005001
MRID 00093642

MRID 45602904
MRID 45739801

MRID 00093642

MRID 4560290418 Parameter Value Reference
Mobility
Fruendlich Adsorption Coefficients (K f ) parent sandy loam: 0.18 6 L·kg -1 silt: 0.36 L·kg -1 clay: 0.6 L·kg -1 sand: 0.2 L·kg -1
aldicarb sulfoxide: Tujunga loamy sand: 0.22 L·kg -1 Wedowee sandy loam: 0.17 L·kg -1 Huntington silt loam: 0.26 L·kg -1 Huntington sandy clay loam: 0.26 L·kg -1
aldicarb sulfone: Tujunga loamy sand: 0.09 L·kg -1 Wedowee sandy loam: 0.12 L·kg -1 Huntington silt loam: 0.22 L·kg -1 Huntington sandy clay loam: 0.22 L·kg -1 MRID 42498202

MRID 43560301

MRID 43560302

Parent aldicarb and its degradat es are higly mobile and are know n to move to ground water in sandy acidic soils. In poorly permeable soils, it will move with runoff. Following a rain event, aldicarb may reach aquatic environments as sheet and channel flow from areas of application, since aldicarb is moderately persistent in terrestrial environments and soluble in water. It is unlikely, though, that undissolved granules will reach surface water bodies as the granules themselves are not particularly mobile and in most cases buried below the surface. The toxic degradates (aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb su lfone) are more prone to move vertically down through the soil profile, and potentially into ground water, as they form primarily in the shallow
subsurface. Ground water that contains aldicarb residues may then be discharged into surface waters as baseflow. If the receiving ground water is cool, acidic, and oxic, the sulfoxide and sulfone degradates will be very persistent and capable of long-distance subsurface transport.

Aldicarb and its oxidation products are all highly mobile in soil. Aldicarb itself has Freundlich

K ads values ranging between 0.19 ml/g (for sa ndy loam) and 0.60 ml/g (for clay) (MRID 42498202). Aldicarb sulfoxi de has Freundlich K ads values between 0.17 ml/g (sandy loam soil) and 0.26 ml/g (sandy clay loam) (MRID 43560301). Aldicarb sulfone had slightly lower values, ranging between 0.09 ml/g and 0.22 ml/g for the same set of soils as the sulfoxide (MRID 43560302). Aldicarb is not expected to be mobile into or through the atmosphere because aldicarb is applied as a granule, and because its potential to enter the air from water or soil is considered insignificant based on its Henry’s Law constant (3.0 x 10 -10 atm·m 3 /mol) and vapor pressure (6.25 x 10 -6 torr).

In 2006, Bayer CropScience, submitted 5 retrospective ground water monitoring studies to look
for residues of aldicarb and its sulfoxide and sulfone metabo lites in potable water from private wells in aldicarb use areas. This study mon itored 1,673 drinking water wells and collected information on ground-water depth, well depth, casing depth, well type and age, soil types, recent aldicarb use history, crops, and distance of the well from the treated field. The study sampled drinking water wells in fi ve regions of the country: the S outheastern US (800 wells), the19 Mississippi Delta (169 wells), th e Pacific Northwest (303 we lls), Texas (201 wells), and California (200 wells). The study found that aldicar b residues – predominantly the sulfoxide and sulfone metabolites – were detected in 10 percen t of the wells sampled. The greatest frequencies of detections were in the Southeastern US ( 16%, with a maximum detect of 2.9 ug/L) and the Mississippi Delta (9%, w ith a maximum detect of 2.6 ug/L) re gions. Because the single samples represent a snapshot in time, the Agency assume d that the measured concentrations reflected a median concentration for that particular we ll. Frequency and magnit udes of detection for aldicarb residues were generally greater for well s located within 300 feet of a field (~10% of wells had detections); aldicarb re sidues were detected in 4-6% of wells located >300 feet from the field, although detections were < 1ug/L. A comparison of wells located near fields with restricted soils (as identified in the Temik 15G label) to those wher e the surrounding fields
contained no restricted soils s howed that, while the frequency of aldicarb detections was greater
for wells near restricted soil t ypes, the magnitude of aldicarb re sidues was greater for wells with no restricted soil types.20 5. Receptors

Consistent with the process described in th e Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), the risk assessment for aldicarb will rely on a surrogate species approach. Toxicological data generated from surrogate test species, whic h are intended to be representa tive of broad taxonomic groups, are used to extrapolate to pot ential effects on a vari ety of species (rec eptors) included under these taxonomic groupings.

The Agency evaluates the potential for adverse a ffects as a result of aldicarb usage. As described in the Agency’s Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), the most sensitive endpoint for each taxon is used for RQ calculations. Assessment endpoints include direct toxic effects on the survival, reproduction, and growth of terrestrial and aquatic life, as we ll as indirect effects, such as reduction in prey base and/or modification of habitat. The ev aluated taxa include freshwater fish, freshwater aquatic invertebra tes, birds, small mammals, terrest rial invertebrates, algae, and terrestrial plants.

Acute (short-term) and chroni c (long-term) toxicity informa tion is characterized based on registrant-submitted studies and a comprehensive review of the open literature on aldicarb. Other sources of information, including use of the acute probit dose response relationship to establish the probability of an individual effect and review s of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), are conducted to fu rther refine the charac terization of potential ecological effects associated with exposure to al dicarb. A summary of the available ecotoxicity
information and the incident informati on for aldicarb is provided below.

Table 5.1 provides a summary of the assessment e ndpoints previously identif ied as a measure of effects. A detailed summary of available to xicity data is provided in the Appendix.

Table 5.1 Measures of Ecologi cal Effects for Aldicarb

Assessment Endpoint Selected Surrogate Species and Measure of Ecological
Effect Comments

Birds Survival Mallard duck oral LD 50 = 1 mg ai/kg-bw MRID 00107398

Survival Mallard duck subacute dietary LC 50 = 594 ppm Bobwhite quail subacute dietary LC 50 = 71 ppm MRID 1096727
MRID 00102132

Reproduction and growth Mallard duck NOAEC/LOAEC = not established Bobwhite quail NOAEC = 1.8 ppm, LOAEL = 8.3 ppm MRID 48198801
MRID 48156905

Mammals Survival Rat LD 50 = 0.9 mg ai/kg bw MRID 00057333

Reproduction and growth Rat NOAEL = 0.4 ppm MRID 42148401

Freshwater fish Survival Rainbow trout acute 96-hr LC 50 = 0.560 ppm ai Bluegill sunfish 96-hr LC 50 = 0.052 ppm ai MRID 40098001
MRID 40098001

Reproduction and growth Fathead minnow NOAEC = 0.078 ppm; LOAEC = 0.156

ppm MRID 44598601

Freshwater
invertebrates Survival Chironomus acute 48-hr EC 50 = 0.020 ppm ai Moore et al.
1998

Reproduction and growth Daphnia NOAEC = 0.020 ppm ai; LOAEC = 0.058 ppm
ai MRID 4559211221 Assessment Endpoint Selected Surrogate Species and Measure of Ecological
Effect Comments

Estuarine/marine
fish Survival Sheepshead minnow LC 50 = 0.041 ppm ai MRID 40228401

Reproduction and growth Sheepshead minnow NOAEC =0.05 ppm; LOAEC = 0.088

ppm MRID 00066341

Estuarine/marine
invertebrates Survival Pink shrimp LC 50 = 0.012 ppm ai Oyster 96-hr EC 50 = 8.8 ppm ai MRID 40228401
MRID 00066341

Reproduction and growth Mysid NOAEC = 0.0013 ppm MRID 00066341

Terrestrial plants Survival and growth Seedling Emergence : >25% effects observed in ryegrass (shoot weight) and tomato (shoot length and weight)

Vegetative Vigor: No data but prior waiver was granted MRID 47904401

Insects Survival Acute contact LD 50 = 0.285 ug/bee MRID 00036935

Aquatic plants Biomass and
Growth Rate 7 day Duckweed EC 50 > 88.7 ppm ai; NOAEC = 5.50

ppm 5 day Marine Diatom EC50 > 50 ppm ai MRID 47904402

MRID 40228401

LD 50 = Lethal dose to 50% of the test population; NOAEC = No observed adverse effect concentration; NOAEL = No observed adverse effect level; LC 50 = Lethal concentration to 50% of the test population; EC 50 = Effect concentration to 50% of the test population; IC 50 = concentration resulting in a 50% inhibition in the test population response ( e.g. , growth)

5.1. Effects to Terrestrial Species

5.1.1. Birds and Mammals

The acute oral LD 50 is 1.0 mg/kg-bw for aldicarb and 33.5 mg/kg-bw for aldicarb sulfone. The most sensitive species tested for both chemical s is the mallard duck. Aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone are categorized as very highly toxic a nd highly toxic to avian sp ecies on an acute oral basis, respectively (MRID 107398).

The most sensitive species tested on a subacute 5- d dietary basis for both aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone is the bobwhite quail. The LC 50 is 71 ppm for aldicarb and 5706 ppm for aldicarb
sulfone. Aldicarb and aldicarb su lfone are categorized as very highly toxic and practically nontoxic to avian species, respect ively, based on the subacute dietary exposure data (MRID 00102132 & 1096727).

Avian reproduction data suggest s that Aldicarb has reproduct ive effects at 8.3 ppm with a NOAEC of 1.8 ppm (MRID 48198801). Although none of the endpoints in the treated groups displayed statistically significant differences compared to contro ls, several of the endpoints had 10-25% difference in the two highest treatments . These endpoints include: number of eggs laid/pen, number of eggs set/p en, number of viable embryos/pen, number of live embryos/pen, number of hatchlings/pen, hatchl ing survival/pen. In addition, adult body weight gain was also
decreased in these treatments. Th ese differences may be biologicall y significant. Therefore, the NOAEC was 1.8 ppm and the LOAEC was 8.3 ppm.22 Acute oral LD 50 and reproduction data for laboratory rats submitted to the Health Effects Division (HED) for evaluation of human toxicity were used to assess the mammalian acute and chronic toxicity of aldicarb. The LD 50 for rats is 0.9 mg ai/kg (MRID 00057333). These results classify aldicarb as very highly toxic to mammals on an acute expos ure basis. In a 2-generation reproduction study (MRID 42148401), rats were expos ed to aldicarb in their diet at concentrations of 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 ppm. E xposure consistently led to decreased dam body weight gain (parental LOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kg-bw; NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg-bw). Aldicarb
treatment also caused lower surviv ability and pup weights in offspr ing of all litters (reproductive LOAEL = 1.4 - 1.7 mg/kg-bw; NOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kg- bw). These toxicity values are similar
to the acute oral LD 50 mammalian values and suggest that mammals that survive acute aldicarb exposure may suffer adverse reproductive effects from chronic exposure.

5.1.2. Beneficial Insects

An acute contact study using al dicarb resulted in an LD 50 of 0.285 μ g/bee and the compound was classified as very highly toxic (MRID 00036935). Because of its granular formulation, it is unlikely that there is a direct contact exposure scenario fo r honeybees. Other soil dwelling
beneficial insects and inverteb rates could be exposed to aldi carb and aldicarb residues through contact with the granules and/or with plants due to its systemic nature.

5.1.3. Plants

A seedling emergence study was submitted (MRID 47904401) but was classified as supplemental. The most sensitive monocot spec ies was ryegrass, with a 12 and 44% difference in shoot length and weight, respectively, compar ed to the control. Th e most sensitive dicot species was tomato, with a 28 and 25% differenc e in shoot length and weight, respectively, compared to the control. Phytot oxic effects, including stunting and necrosis, were observed in ryegrass and tomatoes. Based on the observance of >25% effects in ryegrass and tomato, a tier II study with these two species is necessary to fulfill the guideline requirement for 850.4100. A vegetative vigor study was not available since a waiver was previously granted for it.

5.2. Effects to Aquatic Species

5.2.1. Parent Aldicarb Toxicity

5.2.1.1. Fish

Acute Exposure

Since the LC 50 falls in the range of 52 to 8860 ppb, aldica rb is categorized as very highly to moderately toxic to freshwater fish on an acute ba sis. The most sensitive freshwater fish species
tested for aldicarb was th e bluegill sunfish. The LC 50 for aldicarb was 52 ppb for the bluegill sunfish which is characterized as very hi ghly toxic to freshwater fish [MRID 40098001 and MRID 3503 (Mayer and Ellersieck 1 986)]. This same study found n LC 50 of 560 ppb for the rainbow trout. A supplemental acute toxicity test conducted under static conditions found an

LC 50 for aldicarb of 110 ppb for juvenile bluegill sunf ish. Because of the st atic conditions, it is likely this value reflects contribution of pare nt aldicarb and its degr adates. This study23 characterized aldicarb as very highly toxic to juvenile blue gill sunfish. A supplemental study from the open literature also concluded that al dicarb was moderately toxic to the fathead minnow Pimephales promelas with a reported 48-hour EC 50 of 8860 ppb (Moore. et al . 1998). The LC 50 of 52 ppb for the bluegill sunfish was used to calculate risk quotients in prior assessments because it was the most sensitive endpoint.

Chronic Exposure

A freshwater fish early life-stage test usi ng aldicarb has been conducted with the fathead minnow. The NOAEC was 78 ppb, the LOAEC was 156 ppb. The most sensitive endpoint was the survival of juveniles after 30-days exposure. [MRID 44598601 also identified as BOWOAL07/4 (Q.H. Pickeri ng and W.T. Gilliam 1982)].

A saltwater fish chronic st udy was conducted using the sheepshead minnow (MRID 00066341). The NOAEC was 50 ppb, the LOAEC was 88 ppb. The most sensitive e ndpoint was growth (mean standard length).

5.2.1.2. Aquatic Invertebrates

Acute Exposure

A Daphnia magna acceptable study determined the EC 50 to be 410 ppb (Acc #096683, also identified as BOWOAL08, and MRID 107395), categor izing aldicarb as hi ghly toxic to aquatic freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. Because this test was conducted under static rather than flow-through cond itions, it is likely that this valu e reflects the contributions of a mixture of parent aldicarb and various degrad ates. A supplemental study from the literature reported the LC 50 of aldicarb to Daphnia magna, Aedes aegypti, Atermia sp., and Aedes taeniorhynchus as 75, 290, 5460, and 150 ppb respectively, in 48-hour static tests (Song et al.

, 1997). A supplemental study from open literature also concluded that aldicarb was very-highly
toxic to Daphnia magna with a reported 48-hour EC 50 was of 583 ppb (Moore et al . 1998). This same study reported a 48-hour EC 50 of 3990 ppb for Hyalella azteca (categorized as moderately toxic) and a reported 48-hour EC 50 of 20 ppb for Chironomus dilutus (formerly known as C.

tentans )

. A supplemental study obtained from open literature (Foran et al. 1985) determined the
48-hr EC 50 of juvenile Daphnia laevis to be 65 ppb and 51 ppb for adult Daphnia laevis categorizing aldicarb as very highly toxic. Because Moore et al. (1998) is classified as a supplemental study of high quality, the 48-hr Chironomus dilutus EC 50 value of 20 ppb was used in prior risk characterizations.

Because Moore et al. (1998) is classified as a supple mental study of high quality, the 48 hr
Chironomus tetans EC 50 value of 20 ppb was used in pr ior risk characterizations.

Chronic Exposure

A chronic estuarine/marine invertebrate full lif e-cycle test using aldi carb has been conducted with mysid shrimp. The NOAEC was 1 ppb and the LOAEC was 1.5 ppb. The most sensitive endpoint was average number of offspring (MRID 00066341).24 5.2.1.3. Aquatic Plants

A 7-day acute toxicity study with Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) resulted in a LC50 of >88.7 mg ai/L (the highest concentration). The NOAEC was 5.50 mg ai/L based on effects to frond number, biomass and dry weight at the LOAEC of 14.3 mg ai/L (MRID 47904402). A 5 day study with the diatom produced an EC 50 of >50 ppm (MRID 40228401).

5.3. Degradate Toxicity

Aldicarb’s sulfone and sulfoxide degradates have been shown to be 1 to 2 orders of magnitude less toxic compared with parent aldicarb to aqua tic organisms. For more detailed information see the Appendix.

5.4. Incident Database Review

A search was made on October 27, 2011 of the Ec ological Incident Information System (EIIS, version 2.1), which is maintained by the Agency ’s Office of Pesticide Programs, and the Avian Incident Montoring System (AIMS), which is ma intained by the American Bird Conservancy. A total of 36 incidents for aldicarb were reported to the Agency. There were 17 (47%) incidents (most using WDG bait applications) classified as “highly probable” of which 15 were classified as “intentional misuse”, 1 was classified as “a ccidental misuse” and another was classified as “unknown”. There were 9 (25%) incidents classifi ed as “probable”, 10 (28%) classified as “possible” and 0 classified as “unlikely”. The following table summarizes these incidents.25Table 5.2. Summary ofAldicarb IncidentsIncident # Date County State Certainty Legality Formulation ApplMethodTotal MagnitudeAQUATICAgriculturalAreaI000165-052 6/12/92 NC 2 RU WDG Soil Incorp. Sm Number of bluegillN/RI003826-002 6/12/95 Johnston NC 2 UN N/R N/R UnknownPLANTSCottonI010837-012 5/18/00 Williamsburg SC 2 UN 655 acres of 690PeanutI011838-085 Caddo OK 2 UN 106 acresI011838-010 5/27/00 Houston GA 2 UN N/R N/R All 141 acresI011838-061 5/21/01 Caddo OK 2 UN 217 acresI011838-059 5/21/01 Caddo OK 2 UN 78 acreaPotatoI012089-009 8/7/01 Bingham ID 2 RU N/R Pre-Broadcast All 1050 acresTERRESTRIALAgricultural AreaI001267-001 10/3/94 4 MI WDG Unknown 1 HawkI010439-001 6/1/00 Pearl River MS 4 MI N/R Bait 1 Coyote & 1 OpossumI013168-001 7/25/02 Carroll TN 4 MI Bait 9 birdsI021411-012 10/29/08Eastland TX 3 M WDG Animal controlDevice1 Hawk & 1 BuzzardBaitI002352-001 4/9/92 Edgefield SC 4 MI WDG Bait 3 Hawks, 1 Raccoon,1 Opossum, 1 Grey Fox& a number of RabbitsI008694-001 2/10/98 Marengo AL 2 MI WDG Bait 1 Golden EagleI007595-001 7/15/98 Evangeline LA 3 MA WDG Bait 1 RaccoonI011213-007 2/28/01 VA 3 MI WDG Bait 1 Great horned owlI016407-062 5/15/05 ID 4 MI Bait 1 Gray WolfI017085-001 3/1/06 Floyd GA 4 MI Bait 1 Dog & 2 OpossumI019925-001 2/23/08 Hancock GA 4 MI WDG Bait 1 Coyote, 1 Red-tailedHawk & 23 other unknown26Table 5.2. Summary ofAldicarb IncidentsBait, carcass/meatB000178-001 12/1/88 NE 4 UN 3 Magpie & 1 EagleI010439-002 7/1/00 Hancock MS 3 MI N/R Bait 1 Dog, 1 Raccoon &1 BuzzardI013928-001 2/7/03 Columbia GA 4 MI Bait 1 Coyote, 1 Red Fox &1 Yellow-rumped WarblerI017141-001 1/3/06 Floyd GA 2 MI 2 Dogs & 2 OpossumI019363-003 1/29/08 Pike AL 3 MI WDG Bait 2 Dogs & 3 OpossumI019647-014 2/12/08 MS 4 MI WDG Bait 10 Hawks & someVulturesI019647-015 2/27/08 Montgomery AR 4 MI WDG Bait 30-35I019647-016 3/24/08 McDuffie GA 4 MI Bait 20-25CottonI005364-001 Mississippi AR 4 MA Soil incorp 2 Dogs & 1 RaccoonN/RI011300-001 2/7/01 Putnum GA 4 MI Bait 2 HawksI014343-001 7/9/03 Effingham GA 3 UN 2 VulturesI017462-001 3/27/06 Troup GA 4 MI 2 Vultures & 1 RabittPotatoB0000-400-7 3/17/91 Hertford NC 4 MI UnincorpBroadcast24 Gulls, 2 Finches & 7BlackbirdsI000799-005 3/18/91 Hertford NC 3 MI WDG N/R 37QuarryI015916-001 1/1/99 3 MI Bait 3 Peregrine FalconsRangelandI000637-001 1/1/93 Uvalde TX 3 MI N/R N/RWoodlandsI007372-003 1/27/97 Kent DE 4 MI N/R N/R 1 Dog, 1 Red Fox & 1Red-tailed hawkMI= Intentional MisuseUN= unknownMA= Accidental Misuse27 6. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

The ecosystems potentially at risk are often extens ive in scope; therefore, it may not be possible to identify specific ecosystems during the de velopment of a nation-wide ecological risk assessment. However, in general terms, terrest rial ecosystems potentially at risk could include the treated field and immediately adjacent areas that may receive dr ift or runoff. Areas adjacent to the treated field could include cultivated fields, fencerows and hedgerows, meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian ha bitats, and other uncu ltivated areas.

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include wa ter bodies adjacent to, or down stream from, the treated field and might include impounded water bodies such as ponds, lakes and reservoirs, or flowing waterways such as stream s or rivers. For uses in coasta l areas, aquatic habitat also includes marine ecosystems, including estuaries.

7. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints represent the ac tual environmental value that is to be protected, defined by an ecological entity (species, community, or othe r entity) and its attrib ute or characteristics (USEPA, 1998). For aldicarb, the ecological entities include the fo llowing: birds, reptiles, terrestrial-phase amphibians, mammals, freshwat er fish, freshwater a quatic-phase amphibians and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and inve rtebrates, terrestrial plants, insects, aquatic plants, and algae. The attributes for each of these entities include growth, reproduction, and survival. The assessment endpoints and their associat ed measures of effect that will be included in ecological risk assessments of aldicarb are included in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Summary of assessment endpo ints and their measures of effects.

Assessment Endpoint Measures of Effect

1. Abundance ( i.e. , survival, reproduction, and growth) of
individual birds ● Avian (at least mallard duck) acute oral (single dose) LD 50

● Avian (at least mallard duck and bobwhite quail) subacute 5-day dietary

LC 50

● Avian (at least mallard duck) reproduction NOAEL ( e.g. , number of eggs laid, set, cracked, hatched; number of viable embryos; 14 day hatchling survival and growth; egg thickness; parental survival and weight gain/loss) 2. Abundance ( i.e. , survival, reproduction, and growth) of
individual mammal ● Mammal (at least laboratory rat) acute oral (single dose) LD 50 (male and female)

● Mammal (at least laboratory rat) chronic (reproductive) NOAEC or

NOAEL 3. Survival and reproduction of
freshwater fish and invertebrates ● Fish (at least rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish) acute 96-h LC 50

● Fish (at least rainbow trout or bluegill sunfish, prefer species tested match that of the more acutely sensitive speci es tested) chronic early life stage or life-cycle NOAEC ( e.g. , number hatched, time to hatch, mortality, growth of young)

● Invertebrate (at least Daphnia magna ) acute 96-h (48-h for cladocerans like D. magna ) LC 50 or EC 50 where the effect measured is a surrogate for death

● Invertebrate (at least Daphnia magna ) chronic reproductive NOAEC ( e.g. , number of young produced, time to first brood release, parental survival, parental growth) 4. Survival and reproduction of
estuarine/marine fish and
invertebrates ● Fish (at least Atlantic silverside or sheepshead minnow) acute 96-h LC 50

● Mollusk (at least Eastern oyster) acute 96-h EC 50 where the effect measured is shell deposition or embryo/larval fertilization, survival, and28 Assessment Endpoint Measures of Effect

normal shell development

● Other invertebrates (at least pink sh rimp or mysid shrimp) acute 96-h LC 50 or C 50 where the effect measured is a surrogate for mortality

● Fish (prefer species that matches the most acutely sensitive fish tested) early life stage or life cycle NOAEC ( e.g. , number hatched, time to hatch, growth of young, overall survival)

● Invertebrate (at least mysid shrimp, prefer species tested is the more acutely sensitive species tested) chronic NOAEC 5. Perpetuation of individuals and populations of non-targetterrestrial plants (crops and noncrop plant species) ● Monocot and dicot seedling emergence EC 25

● Monocot and dicot seedling emergence EC 05 or NOAEC

● Monocot and dicot vegetative vigor EC 25

● Monocot and dicot vegetative vigor EC 05 or NOAEC

6. Survival of beneficial insects ● Honeybee acute contact LD 50 7. Maintenance and growth of aquatic plants from standing crop or biomass ● Aquatic plants (at least an algae (g reen, and blue-green), a diatom and a vascular plant (at least duckweed)) acute EC 50

● Aquatic plants (at least an algae (g reen and blue-green), a diatom, and a vascular plant (at least duckweed)) EC 05 or NOAEC

LD 50 = median lethal dose (mg/kg-bw/d) is the dose that results in 50% mortality of an exposed test population.
NOAEC = No observed advers e effect concentration.
LOAEC = Lowest observed adverse effect concentration.

LC 50 = median lethal concentration is the concentration that results in 50% mortality of an exposed test population.

EC 50 = median effect concentration is the concen tration that results in a specific effect ( e.g. , immobility, emergence) to 50% of the exposed test population.

EC 25 = the concentration that results in a specific effect to 25% of the exposed test population.

8. Conceptual Model

For a pesticide to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological r eceptors in biologically significant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a pe sticide moves in the
environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an ecol ogical pathway to be complete, it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point of exposure for ecological receptors, an d a feasible route of exposure.

The conceptual model for aldicarb provides a writte n description and visual representation of the predicted relationships between al dicarb, potential routes of expos ure, and the predicted effects for the assessment endpoint. A conceptual mode l consists of two major components: risk hypothesis and a conceptual diagram (USEPA, 1998).

Based on an examination of the phy sical/chemical properties of aldi carb, its fate and disposition in the environment, and its mode of appli cation, a conceptual model was developed that represents the possible relationshi ps between this pesticide as a stressor, ecological receptors, and the assessment endpoints. The conceptual model depicts the potential pathways for ecological risk associated with aldicarb use (s ee Figures 8.1 and 8.2). The conceptual model provides an overview of the expected exposure pa thways and effects of aldicarb on terrestrial and aquatic environments. Solid arrows depict th e most likely routes of exposure and effects; dashed lines depict potential rout es of exposure that are not cons idered likely for aldicarb.29 Figure 8-1. Conceptual model for aldicarb ef fects on aquatic organisms. Dotted lines indicate exposure pathways that have a low likelihood of contributing to ecological risk.

Based on the the use patterns, which are all granul ar, no off-site spray drift is expected to occur
for aldicarb. Because aldicarb is not vola tile with a vapor pressure of (6.25 x 10 -6 torr ) transport through the atmosphere is also un likely to occur. While aldicarb and its degradates are known to contaminate ground water and it is possible that base flow from ground water into streams may
contain aldicarb residues. Aldicarb residues in water from r unoff are expected to be higher and
assessment of concentrations from surface runoff w ill be used to be protective of risks due to base flow from ground water. Because aldicarb is highly soluble and poorly sorbed on soil particles, concentrations of aldicarb in puddles that may occur after rainfall or an irrigation event may be a significant route of exposure and will be assessed for risks to terrestrial mammals and
birds.

8.1. Risk Hypothesis

A risk hypothesis describes the predicted re lationship among the stre ssor, exposure, and assessment endpoint response along with the rationa le for their selection. For aldicarb, the 

### Stressor

Source

Receptors

Attribute Change Aldicarb applied to use site as granule

Fish/aquatic-phase amphibians Eggs

Larvae
Juveniles / Adults

Individual organisms
Reduced survival Reduced growth Reduced reproduction Food chain Reduction in algae Reduction in prey Habitat integrity Reduction in primary productivity
Reduced cover Community change Surface water/

Sediment Runoff

Aquatic Animals
Invertebrates
Vertebrates 

### Exposure
Media

Uptake/gills or integument

Ingestion Ingestion Soil Groundwater

Uptake/gills or integument

Aquatic Plants

N on-vascular
Vascular Uptake/cell, roots, leaves Riparian plant
terrestrial

exposure pathways see

Figure 230 following ecological risk hypothesi s is being employed for this national-level ecological risk

assessment:

Aldicarb, when used in accordance with current labels, can result in off-site movement of the compound to surface wate r via runoff, leaching to ground water, or exposure to terrestrial plants and ani mals. Exposure in these environmental compartments will result in adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms. These non-target organisms include federally-listed th reatened and endangered species.

Figure 8-2 . Conceptual model for aldicarb effects on terrestrial organisms.

9. Analysis Plan

In order to address the risk hypot hesis, the potential for advers e effects on the environment is estimated. The use, environmental fate, and ecologi cal effects of aldicarb are characterized and integrated to assess the risks. This is accomp lished using a risk quotient (ratio of exposure
concentration to effects concentr ation) approach. Although risk is often defined as the likelihood and magnitude of adverse ecological effects, the risk quotient-based approach does not provide a quantitative estimate of likelihood and/or magn itude of an adverse effect. However, after calculating the risk quotient values, the like lihood of effects to indi vidual organisms from 

### Stressor

Source

Receptors

Attribute Change Aldicarb applied to use site as granule

Direct application

Birds / Terrestrialphase amphibians / reptiles /

mammals Terrestrial

insects

Individual organisms
Reduced survival Reduced growth Reduced reproduction Food chain Reduction in prey Habitat integrity Reduction in primary productivity
Reduced cover Community change Terrestrial/riparian plants grasses/forbs, fruit, seeds (trees, shrubs) Atmosphere

Mammals 

### Exposure
Media Soil

Ingestion Ingestion

Ingestion Ingestion Dermal uptake/Ingestion

Root uptake

Birds /

Am p hibians Ingestion Runoff31 particular uses of aldicarb is estimated using the probit dose-res ponse slope and e ither the level of concern (discussed below) or actual ca lculated risk quotient value (USEPA, 2004).

This analysis plan will be revisited and may be revised depending upon the information submitted by the public in response to the opening of the registration revi ew docket for aldicarb.

9.1. Measures of Exposure

In order to estimate risks of al dicarb exposures in aquatic a nd terrestrial environments, all exposure modeling and resulting risk conclusion s will be based on maximum application rates
and methods and will be estimated for each use of aldicarb. Measures of exposure are based on aquatic and terrestrial models that predict es timated environmental concentrations (EEC) of
aldicarb residues of concern.

Because levels of concern to aquatic organisms have been exceeded in previous assessments, the aquatic exposure assessment will be performed at Tier 2. The models used to predict aquatic
EECs are PRZM and EXAMS – PRZM is used to model processes on the agricultural field and generates inputs for EXAMS which simulates pro cesses in the waterbo dy. The model used to predict screening level (Tier 1) terrestrial EEC s is the Terrestrial Residue EXposure (T-REX) model. The model used to derive screening level EECs relevant to terrestrial and wetland plants is TerrPlant. These models are parameterized using relevant reviewed environmental fate data from registrant submissions and the literature; m odel input values will be consistent with the most recent version of the input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009).

The measure of exposure for aquatic species is th e modeled peak or rolling mean concentration which recurs once every ten years. The 1-in-10 year peak concentration is used for estimating acute exposures of direct effects to aquatic organi sms. The 1-in-10-year 60-day mean is used for assessing chronic exposure to fish and aquatic-p hase amphibians. The 1-in-10-year 21-day mean is used for assessing aquatic i nvertebrate chronic exposure.

Because aldicarb is a granule, exposure and risk to terrestrial animals w ill be assessed using the LD50/sq. ft method using the most current versi on of T-REX at the time of the assessment. In addition, given the high toxicity of aldicarb to te rrestrial animals, pot ential for secondary exposure (animals that consume contaminat ed prey) will also be evaluated.

As stated above, screening level EECs for terrest rial plants inhabiting dry and wetland areas are derived using TerrPlant (version 1.2.2, 12/26/2006). This model uses estimates of pesticides in runoff to calculate EECs (spray drift will not be evaluated due to the granular formulation). EECs are based upon solubility, application ra te and minimum incorporation depth.

Available monitoring data will be used to quali tatively characterize exposure and compare with modeling results. The Agency is aware of mon itoring conducted by federal and state agencies
and this information will be considered in the assessment to the extent that data on aldicarb are
available.32 AgDRIFT is normally used to assess exposures of terrestrial plants by deposited residue in terrestrial habitats through spray drift. Since aldi carb applications are all gr anular in nature, drift is not expected to be an i ssue and will not be assessed.

The S creening I mbibition P rogram (SIP v.1.0, Released June 15, 2010) was used to calculate an upper bound estimate of wildlife expo sure from drinking water usi ng aldicarb’s solubility (5100 ppm), the most sensitive acute and chr onic avian toxicity endpoints (Avian LD 50 = 1 mg/kg-bw and 1.8 ppm, respectively) and the most sensitive acute and chronic mammalian toxicity endpoints (Rat LD 50 = 0.9 mg/kg-bw and 0.4 ppm, respectivel y). Drinking water exposure alone was determined to be a potential acute and ch ronic pathway of concern for avian or mammalian species. Therefore, this exposure route will be further evaluated during the conduct of the registration review risk assessment. Results fo r mammalian and avian species are presented in the following tables.

Table 9A . Mammalian SIP Results

Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 1032.00 1032.00 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 0.6922 0.0154 Ratio of exposure to toxicity 1490.8027 67086.12

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure alone is a potential acute

concern for mammals Drinking water exposure alone is a potential chronic
concern for mammals

Table 9B. Avian SIP Results

Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 4860.00 4860.00 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 0.5192 0.1913 Ratio of exposure to toxicity 9360.09 25400.2131

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure alone is a potential acute
concern for birds Drinking water exposure alone is a potential chronic
concern for birds

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. Therefore, when aggregated with other routes ( i.e ., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has potential for effects to non-target animals.

9.2. Measures of Effect

Ecological effects data are used as measures of direct and indirect effects to biological receptors. Data were obtained from registrant-submitted studies or from literature studies identified by the ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX). ECOTOX wa s searched in order to provide more ecological effects data to bri dge existing data gaps. ECOTOX is a source for locating single chemical toxicity data and potential chemical mi xture toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. ECOTOX wa s created and is maintained by the USEPA, Office of Research and Development, and the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory's Mid-Continent Ecology Division (USEPA, 2007 a ).33 Information on the potential effects of aldicarb on non-target animals is al so collected from the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS ; USEPA, 2007). The EIIS is a database containing adverse effect (typically mortality) reports on non-target organisms where such
effects have been associated w ith the use of pesticides.

Quantitative assessments of risks are limited to thos e endpoints that can be directly linked to the Agency’s assessment endpoints of impaired surviv al, growth and reproduction. Where available, additional sublethal effects observed in both regi strant-submitted and open literature studies will be evaluated qualitatively. Such effects have included behavioral changes ( e.g. , lethargy, changes
in coloration and e ffects olfaction).

The screening level assessment of risk for dir ect effects to non-target organisms makes the assumption that toxicity of aldi carb to birds is similar to terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. The same assumption is made for fish and aquatic-phase amphibians.

The acute measures of effects used for animal s in this screening-level assessment are the LD 50 , LC 50 and EC 50 . LD stands for "Lethal Dose", and LD 50 is the amount of a material, given all at once, that is estimated to cause the death of 50% of the test organisms. LC stands for “Lethal
Concentration” and LC 50 is the concentration of a chemical that is estimated to kill 50% of the test organisms. EC stands for “Effective Concentration” and the EC 50 is the concentration of a
chemical that is estimated to produce a specific effect in 50% of the test organisms. Endpoints for chronic measures of exposure for listed and non-listed animals are the NOAEL/NOAEC.
NOAEL stands for “No Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level ” and refers to the hi ghest tested dose of a substance that has been reporte d to have no harmful (adverse) e ffects on test organisms. The NOAEC ( i.e. , “No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Concentration” ) is the highest test concentration at
which none of the observed effects were statistica lly different from the control. For non-listed plants, only acute expo sures are assessed ( i.e. , EC 25 for terrestrial plants and EC 50 for aquatic plants); for listed plants, either the NOAEC or EC 05 is used.

9.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects

Risk characterization is the in tegration of exposure and ecologi cal effects characterization to determine the potential ecological risk from the use of aldicarb on crops li sted and the likelihood
of direct and indirect effects to non-target organisms in a quatic and terrestrial habitats. The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated in order to evaluate the risks of adverse ecological effects on non-ta rget species. For the assessment of aldicarb ri sks, the risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare exposure and m easured toxicity values. EECs are divided by acute and chronic toxicity values. The resulti ng RQs are then compared to the Agency’s LOCs (USEPA, 2004). These criteria ar e used to indicate when aldica rb’s uses, as directed on the label, have the potential to cause adverse direct or indirect effects to non -target organisms. As noted previously, where data ar e lacking on the toxici ty of aldicarb, risk will be presumed.

Risk presumptions, along with the corresponding RQs and LOCs ar e tabulated in Tables 9.3-9.5
below.34 Table 9.3. Risk Presumptions for Terrestrial Animals Risk Presumption RQ LOC

Birds : Acute Risk EEC 1 /LC50 or LD50/sqft 2 or LD50/day 3 0.5
Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC50 or LD 50/sqft or LD50/day (or LD50 < 50 mg/kg) 0.2

Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day 0.1
Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1
Wild Mammals : Acute Risk EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day 0.5
Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC50 or LD 50/sqft or LD50/day (or LD50 < 50 mg/kg) 0.2

Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day 0.1
Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1

1 abbreviation for Estimated Environmental Concentration (ppm) on avian/mammalian food items

2 mg/ft 2 3 mg of toxicant consumed/day
LD50 * wt. of bird LD50 * wt. of bird

Table 9.4. Risk Presumpt ions for Aquatic Animals Risk Presumption RQ LOC
Acute Risk EEC 1 /LC50 or EC50 0.5
Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC50 or EC50 0.1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC50 or EC50 0.05
Chronic Risk EEC/MATC or NOAEC 1

1 EEC = (ppm or ppb) in water

Table 9.5. Risk Presumptions for Plants Risk Presumption RQ LOC Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants:
Acute Risk EEC 1 /EC25 1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC05 or NOAEC 1 Aquatic Plants: Acute High Risk EEC 2 /EC50 1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC05 or NOAEC 1

1 EEC = lbs ai/A

2 EEC = (ppb/ppm) in water

9.4. Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessment Methods

The quantitative assessment of risk will primarily depend on the deterministic approach
described above. An effort will be made to furt her qualitatively describe risk using probabilistic tools that the Agency has developed. These t ools have been reviewed by FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panels and have been deemed as ap propriate means of refi ning assessments where deterministic approaches have identified risks.

9.5. Endangered Species Assessments

Consistent with the Agency’s responsibility under the Endangered Sp ecies Act (ESA), the Agency will evaluate risks to Federally-listed th reatened and/or endangere d (listed) species from registered uses of aldicarb. This assessment will be conducted in accordance with the Overview35 Document (USEPA, 2004), provisions of the ESA, and the Services’ Endangered Species
Consultation Handbook (USFWS/NMFS, 1998).

The assessment of effects associated with the regi stration of aldicarb is ba sed on an action area.
The action area is considered to be the area directly or indirectly affected by the federal action, as indicated by the exceedance of Agency LOCs used to evaluate direct or indirect effects. The Agency’s approach to defining the action area u nder the provisions of the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004) considers the results of the risk assessment process to establish boundaries for
that action area with the unders tanding that exposures below the Agency’s defined LOCs constitute a no-effect threshold. For the purposes of this assessment, attention will be focused on the footprint of the action ( i.e ., the area where aldicarb application occurs), plus all areas where offsite transport may result in potential exposur e that exceeds the Agency’s LOCs. Specific measures of ecological effect th at define the action area for liste d species include any direct and indirect effects and/or potential modification of its critical habitat, includ ing reduction in survival, growth, and reproduction as well as the full suite of sub-le thal effects available in the effects literature. Therefore, the action area exte nds to a point where environmental exposures are below any measured lethal or sub-lethal effect threshold for any biologi cal entity at the whole organism, organ, tissue, and/or cellular level of organization. In situations where it is not possible to determine the threshold for an observed effect, the action area is not spatially limited
and is assumed to be the entire United States.

9.6. Drinking Water Assessment

A drinking water exposure asse ssment will be conducted to suppor t future human health risk assessments of aldicarb. The drinking water assessment will incorporate model estimates of aldicarb residues of concern in surface and gr ound waters. Currently, the residues of concern include aldicarb parent, aldicarb sulfoxide, and aldicarb sulfone. Both surface and ground water will be modeled at Tier 2 using PRZM for gr ound water and coupled PRZM and EXAMS with
the index reservoir watershed fo r surface water. Scenarios modele d for surface water will be the same as those chosen for ecological risk assess ment. The drinking water assessment will also include a summary of available surface and ground water monitoring data.

10. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

As required by FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA reviews nu merous studies to a ssess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectiv ely, these studies include acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity, neurotox icity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicit y. These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influe nce, including effects on endocr ine target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual maturati on, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For ecological ha zard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess growth, developm ental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of its reregistration decision

, EPA reviewed these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA secti on 408(p), aldicarb is s ubject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Di sruptor Screening Program (EDSP).36 EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whet her certain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or ot her such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making th e statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a chemical substance to interact with the estrog en, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 scr eening and are found to have the potential to interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will pr oceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify a ny adverse endocrine-related effects caused by the substance, and establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect.

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-i ns for the first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pest icide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. Aldicarb is not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredients on the initial list to be screened under the EDSP. Accordingly, as part of registration review, EPA may issue future EDSP orders/data callins, requiring the submission of EDSP screening assays for aldicarb

. For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website: http://www.epa.gov/endo/

.

11. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps

The fate and toxicity database for aldicarb is su bstantially complete. However, the Agency needs additional environmental fate and ecological e ffects studies prior to conducting the planned assessments. Data gaps, uncertainties and potenti al paths forward for the assessment of aldicarb
are described below. Tables 11.1 and 11.2 identify studies by MRID th at offer data for each guideline requirement, as well as study classifications a nd whether or not further data are needed in order to support risk assessment.

835.6100, Footnote 7: the Environmental Chemistry Method for soil is still needed because of risks posed by aldicarb and its degradates in soil. The method should be able to measure the parent, aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone . This method must be accompanied by an independent laboratory validation.

835.6200, Footnote 7: the Environmental Chemistry Method for water is still needed because of risks posed by aldicarb and its degradates in aq uatic environments. The method should be able to measure the parent, aldicarb sulf oxide and aldicarb sulfone. This method must be accompanied by an independent laboratory validation.37 850.2100 An acute passerine study

Since aldicarb is acutely very highly toxic to ot her bird species, small passerines may be even more susceptible due to their higher metabolic rate s. This data will be useful in characterizing risks to passerine endangered species.

850.2300 Avian reproduction study with the mallard duck.

An avian reproduction study should be repeated since valid endpoints could not be used from the previously submitted study. This data will be useful in characterizing risks to passerine endangered species and in asse ssing chronic risks from the exposure from drinking water exposure and secondary exposure from c onsumption of contaminate prey items.

850.4100 Tier II vegetative vigor an d seedling emergence studies

A Tier I seedling emergence st udy (MRID 47904401) was classified supplemental and cannot be used to fulfill the guideline requirement for guideline 850.4100. This study is upgradable if a Tier II seedling emergence study is submitted for ryegrass and tomato. Generally a seedling emergence study is not required for granular form ulations but can be requested on a case-by-case basis. A waiver request was granted for the vegetative vigor study in 2009 (DP299878). However, aldicarb is a systemic pestic ide and plants can uptake the compound. Phytotoxic effects (including stunting & necr osis) were observed in ryegra ss and tomato in the available seedling emergence study.38 Table 11-1. Available environmental fate data for aldicarb

158
Guideline (OPPTS) Description MRID Classification Additional

Data
Needed? Comments

835.1230 (163-1) Leaching 00053380

00053381
00053385
00101915
00101939
00102079 supplemental supplemental supplemental unacceptable unacceptable supplemental no mobility requirement fulfilled by

835.1240

835.1240 (163-1) Adsorption/Desorption 4 2498202 acceptable no

835.1410

(163-2) Laboratory Volatility not required no

835.2120

(161-1) Hydrolysis 00053377

00096547
00102011
00102048
00102057
00102072
00102065 unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable

acceptable no

835.2240

(161-2) Photodegradation in water 00102067

00102068
42498201 unacceptable supplemental

acceptable no

835.2370 (161-4) Photodegradation in air waived no

835.2410 (161-3) Photodegradation on soil waived no

835.4100

(162-1) Aerobic soil metabolism 00029989

00035365
00053366
00080820
00093640
00093641
00093642
00096968
00101934
00102050
00102051
00102054
00102071
00101915
43805702
44005001 unacceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable supplemental

acceptable unacceptable

acceptable unacceptable supplemental supplemental

acceptable supplemental unacceptable

acceptable no

835.4200 (162-2) Anaerobic soil metabolism no open literature
data is
sufficient for
data needs

835.4300

(162-4) Aerobic aquatic
metabolism no open literature
data is
sufficient for39 Table 11-1. Available environmental fate data for aldicarb

data needs

835.4400

(162-3) Anaerobic Aquatic
Metabolism 43805701 unacceptable no open literature
data is
sufficient for
data needs

835.6100

(164-1) Terrestrial Field Dissipation 00036313
00053364
00068252
00080815
00101910
00101923
00101935
00101936
00101937
00101968
00102061
00102064
00102078 unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable supplemental supplemental supplemental unacceptable unacceptable supplemental supplemental no results of all
studies taken together
satisfies data
needs

835.6200 (164-2) Aquatic Field Dissipation 00094799

00101940 unacceptable unacceptable not required no aquatic

uses 835-6300 (164-3) Forestry Field Dissipation not required no forestry

uses 850.1730 (165-4) Fish Bioconcentration

Factor not required K

ow < 1000

835.6100

Footnote 7 Environmental Chemistry
Method in soil yes

835.6200

Footnote 7 Environmental Chemistry
Method in Water yes

Non-Guideline Retrospective Monitoring
Studies 46793701
46793702
46793703
46793704
46793705
46793706 supplemental supplemental supplemental supplemental supplemental supplemental no40 11.1. Ecological Effects

Table 11.2 identifies studies by MRIDs that offer data for each guideline requirement, as well as study classifications and whether or not furthe r data are needed in order to support risk

assessment.

Table 11.2 Submitted Ecological T oxicity Data for Aldicarb.

Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study
Classification Additional

Data
Needed? Current Additional Data Need

850.2100 Avian Acute Oral MRID 00107398 Acceptable Yes A passerine study is needed (see explanation above)

850.2200 Avian Subacute Dietary MRID 1096727
MRID 00102132 Acceptable Acceptable No

850.2300 Avian Reproduction MRID 48156905
MRID 48198801 Supplemental Supplemental Yes A new reproduction study is needed with the mallard duck (see explanation above)

870.3100 Mammal Acute MRID 00057333 Acceptable No

870.3800 Mammal Reproduction MRID 42148401 Acceptable No

850.3020 Honey Bee Acute
Contact MRID 00036935 Acceptable No

850.1075 Freshwater Fish

Acute MRID 40098001
MRID 40098001 Acceptable Acceptable No

No

850.1400 Freshwater Fish
Chronic MRID 44598601 Acceptable No

850.1010 Freshwater
Invertebrate

Acute Moore et al 1998 Acceptable No

850.1300 Freshwater
Invertebrate
Chronic MRID 45592112 Acceptable No

850.1025 Estuarine/Marine
Fish Acute MRID40228401 Acceptable No

850.1400 Estuarine/Marine
Fish Chronic MRID 00066341 Acceptable No

850.1035 Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrate

Acute MRID 40228401
MRID 00066341 Acceptable Acceptable No

No

850.1350 Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrate
Chronic MRID 00066341 Acceptable No

850.4100
850.4150 Terrestrial plants MRID 47904401 Supplemental Yes Tier II Vegetative Vigor and Seedling Emergence studies are needed (see explanation above)41 Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study
Classification Additional

Data
Needed? Current Additional Data Need

850.4400
850.5400 Aquatic plants MRID 47904402

MRID 40228401 Acceptable Acceptable No

No

12. References

Brassard, David, Katherine St ebbins, and Derek Berwald. 2011. BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Aldicarb. Internal EPA Memorandum to Susan Bartow, Ann Overstreet, and Eric Olsen dated December 8, 2011.

Bromilow, R.H., Briggs, G.G., Williams, M.R., Smelt, J.H., Tuinistra, Th.L.G.M., and W.A. Traag. 1986. The role of ferrous ions in th e rapid degradation of oxamyl, methomyl, and
aldicarb in anaerobic soils. Pesticide Science 17:535-547.

Fellers, G.M, L.L. McConnell, D. Pratt, S. Datt a. 2004. Pesticides in Mountain Yellow-Legged Frogs (Rana Mucosa) from the Sierra Ne vada Mountains of California, USA. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 23 (9):2170-2177.

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger . 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instru ment for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13 (9), 1383-1391.

Health Effects Division. 2005. Estimation Of Cumulative Risk From N-Methyl Carbamate Pesticides: Preliminary Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0360-0013.

Hoerger, F., and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide resi dues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and F. Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Sa fety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology, Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9-28.

LeNoir, J.S., L.L. McConnell, G.M. Fellers, T.M. Cahill, J.N. Seiber. 1999. Summertime Transport of Current-use pesticides from Calif ornia’s Central Valley to the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range,USA. Environmental T oxicology & Chemistry 18(12): 2715-2722.

Lightfoot, E.N., Thorne, P.S., Jones, R.L ., Hansen, J.L., and R.R. Romine. 1987. Laboratory studies on mechanisms for the degr adation of aldicarb, al dicarb sulfoxide, and
aldicarb sulfone. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 6:377-394.

Mayer, F.L. and M.R. Ellersieck. 1986. Manual of acute toxicity: Interpretation and data base for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwat er animals. USDI, FWS Publication 160, Washington, DC. 506 pp. MRID 40098001.42 McConnell, L.L., J.S. LeNoir, S. Datta, J.N. Seiber. 1998. Wet deposition of current-use pesticides in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 17(10):1908-1916.

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2007 . Revised N-Methyl Carbam ate Cumulative Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/nmc_revised_cra.pdf

Sparling, D.W., G.M. Fellers, L.L. McConne ll. 2001. Pesticides and amphibian population declines in California, USA. E nvironmental Toxicology & Chemistry 20(7):

1591-1595.

Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services. 1999. Water Quality Monitoring Program to
Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwat ers of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY, June, 1999.

Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services. 2000. Water Quality Monitoring Program to
Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwat ers of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY, December, 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S . EPA). 1998. Guidance for Ecological Risk
Assessment. Risk Assessment Fo rum. EPA/630/R-95/002F, April 1998.

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in th e Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Pr otection Agency (USEPA). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Available at http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecoriskoverview.pdf

.

USEPA. 2007. Ecological In cident Information System. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efe d/policy_guidance/team_authors/endangered_s pecies_reregistration_workgroup/es a_incident_guidance.htm#eiis

USEPA. 2007 a . ECOTOXicology Database . Office of Research and Development National
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory’s (NHEERL’s) Mid-Continent Ecology Division (MED). http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

.

U.S. EPA. 2006. Aldicarb Ecological Risk Assessment (RED). Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. Office of Pesticide Programs, EFED. Washington, D.C. September 2006.

USFWS/NMFS 2004. Memorandum to Office of Prev ention, Pesticides, a nd Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA conveying an evaluation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service of an approach to assessing the ecological risks of pesticide products.43 USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Pa rameters in Modeling th e Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides. Version 2.1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Oct. 22, 2009. Online

at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/w ater/input_parameter_guidance.htm

U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Service and Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS/NMFS). 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting
Consultation and Conference Ac tivities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Final Draft, United States Fish and Wild life Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. 2002 Pest icide Use Maps. U.S. Geological Survey, National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, Pesticide National Synthesis Program. Accessed on July 14, 2011. Online at: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/ usage/maps/compound_listing.php?year=02

Vink, J.P.M. and S.E.A.T.M. Van der Zee. 1997. Pesticide biotransforma tion in surface waters: multivariate analyses of environmental f actors at field sites. Water Research 31(11):2858-2868.

Internal EPA Documents

Dutta, Subijoy. 1999. Drinking Water Memorandum for Aldicarb for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document (RED). Internal EPA Memorandum to Robert McNally dated April 4, 1999.

D247759. Dutta, Subijoy. 1999. Updated Drinking Water Assessment for Aldicarb (Temik ®
15G). Internal EPA Memorandum dated September 21, 1999. Same as D254590.

D246940. 2001. Carlton, James and Richard Feldhausen. 2003 RED.

D246901. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. EFED Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility Document for Aldicarb. Dated May 15, 2001

.

D299881. Shanaman, Lucy. Refinement to Tier 2 Drinking Water Assessment Tobacco Uses of Aldicarb and its Major Degradates Aldi carb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone . Internal EPA Memorandum to Christine Olinger dated April 10, 2009.

D316754. Angier, Jonathan. 2005. Tier 2 Drinking Water Assessment for Aldicarb and its Major Degradates Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicar b Sulfone. Internal EPA Memorandum to Robert McNally dated April 4, 2005.

D332265. Angier, Jonathan, Diana Eignor, Michelle Embry, Jeannette Martinez, Donna Randall, Dana Spatz, and Nelson Thurman. 2006. Environmental Fate and Effects Division
Aldicarb Revised RED. Internal EPA Memorandum to Bob McNally, Ann Overstreet, and Sherri Kinard dated September 27, 2006.44 D333309. Thurman, Nelson and Jonathan Angier. 2006. Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Total Aldicarb Residues (Parent, Aldi carb Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfone) Based on the N-Methyl Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment . Internal EPA Memorandum to
Sherri Kinard and Felicia Fort dated October 23, 2006.

D348436. Thurman, Nelson and Jonathan Angier. 2008. Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Proposed Expansion of Aldicarb Use on Potatoes Into 6 Additional States (CO, MI, MN, ND, SD, WY). Internal EPA Memorandum to John Hebert and Christine Olinger dated August 26, 2008.45 Appendix A . Submitted Environmental Fate & Ecological Effects Studies

Environmental Fate Studies

00035365. Bull, D.L., R. A. Stokes, J. R. Coppedge, .1970. Further studies of the fate of
Aldicarb in soil. Journal of Economic Entomology 63(4):1283-1289. Also in unpublished submission received Jul 26, 1971. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, D.C.

00036313. Gunther, F.A., G. E. Carman, and R. C. Baines, 1975. Aldicarb (Temik ® ) Residues in Oranges, Orange Leaves, and Soil after So il Application in an Orange Grove

. Unpublished study received Oct 10, 1975 under 6G1689. Prepared in cooperation with
Univ. of California - Riversid e, Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Dept. of Entomology and ot hers. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, D.C.

00053364. Bull, D. L. 1968. Metabolism of UC-21149 (2-Methyl-2-(methythio)- propionaldehyde-O-(methylcarbamoyl)oxime) in cotton plants and soil in the field. Journal of Economic Entomology 61(6):1598- 1602. Also in unpublished submission received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-Ex-37; Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington,

Va.

00053377. Andrawes, N.R., and G. C. Holsing. 1976. Hydrolysis of UC-21865 Sulfo-carb Pesticide in Aqueous Buffer Solutions . Project No. 111A14. (Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.

00053380. Richey, F.A., Jr., and W. J. Bartley, W.J. 1972. Temik Aldicarb Pesticide: Water Leaching of Aldicarb, Aldicarb Sulfoxide , Aldicarb Sulfone and Internal Standard Chloride Ion in Columns of Four Soil Types. Project No. 111A12. Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-EX-37; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington,

Va.

00053381. Richey, jr., F.A., H. H. Moorefield. 1972. Temik--Aldicarb Pesticide: Upward Movement of Aldicarb through Soil during Water Evaporation : Project No. 111A12. (Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington,

Va.

00053385. Romine, R.R., C. B. Hals tead., and C. E. Gibson. 1968. Temik Insecticide: Leaching Characteristics of Temik 10G in Soils. Project No. 111A13. Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-EX-37; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.

00068252. Romine, R. R. and R. L. Meeker. 1972. Temik Aldicarb Pest icide: Leaching of Aldicarb into Sandy Soil with Irrigati on of a Temik Treated Sugar Beet Field . UCC Project Report No. 17079. Unpublished st udy received Aug 4, 1977 under 1016-79; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.

00096547. Spiegel, M.H. and R. A. Conway. 1982. Hydrolysis Studies of Aldicarb, Aldicarb46 Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfon. Project III. (Unpublished study received Mar 9, 1982. Submitted by Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Inc., Ambler, Pa.

00102011. Lykins, H. 1969. Temik Insecticide: The Effect of Temperature and pH on the Stability of Temik, Temik Sulfo xide and Temik Sulfone in Water . Project No. 111A13. (Unpublished study received Jun 25, 1973. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, DC.

00101935. Andrawes, N., W. Bagley., and R. Herrett. 1968. Temik Metabolism: Fate of 14 CTemik in Cultivated Soil. File No. 9218. Unpublished study received Apr 18, 1969 under 9F0798. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp.
00101939. Clarkson, V., B. Rowe, and R. Romine. 1968. Temik Insecticide: Field Evaluation of
the Persistence and Movemen t of Temik and Its Carbam ate Metabolites in Soil . File No. 10485. (Unpublished study received Apr 18, 1969. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York, NY.

00101940. Clarkson, V., B. Rowe , an R. Romine. 1968. Temik Insecticide: Field Evaluation of the Persistence of Temik and Its Carbamate Metaolites in Pond Wa ter and Their Effect
on Pond Fauna. File No. 10491. Unpublished study received Apr 18, 1969. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York, NY.

00101968. Union Carbide Corp. 1969. Soil Decline of Aldicarb . Unpublished study received Aug 20, 1970.

00102048. Lykins, H. and R. Meeker. 1971. Aldicarb Pesticide: Stabili ty of Aldicarb in Water

. Project No. 111A13, File No. 16060. Unpublis hed study received Dec 6, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102057. Stephen, J. and J. Durden. 1969. A Study of the Decomposition of Temik, Temik Sulfoxide and Temik Sulfone in Water at 100 (degrees ). Project No. 111A28, File No. 11815. Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102065. Andrawes, N. and R. Meeker. 1976. Hydrolysis of Temik Aldicarb Pesticide in Aqueous Buffer Solutions . Project No. 111A13, File No. 22263. Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016- 69; submitte d by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102067. Andrawes, N. and R. Meeker. 1976. Photochemical Transformation of Aldicarb. Project No. 111A13, File No. 22335. (Unpubl ished study received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102061. Woodham, D., R. Edwards, and R. Reeves. 1973. Total toxic aldica rb residues in soil, cottonseed, and cotton lint following a soil treatment with the insecticide on the Texas high plains. J. Agr. Food Chem

. 21 (2):303-307. Also in unpublished submission received Dec 9, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.47 00102064. Andrawes, N., W. Bagley, and R. Herre tt. 1971. Fate and carryover properties of Temik aldicarb pesticide (2-methyl-2 -(methylthio)- propionaldehyde -O- (methylcarbamoyl)oxime| in soil. Agricultural and Food Chemistry 19 (4):727-730. Also in unpublished submission received Dec 6, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102068. Andrawes, N. and R. Meeker, R. 1976. Photostability of Aldicarb Sulfoxide . Project No. 111A13, File No. 22325. Unpublished st udy received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102072. Bartley, W., and D. Heywood. 1965. Metabolism Studies: Hydrol ytic Stability of UC
21149. Project No. 855-31101-7073. Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

00102079. Leistra, M. and J. Smelt, and T. Le xmond. 1976. Conversion and leaching of aldicarb
in soil columns. Pestic. Sci. 7 :471-482. Also in unpublished submission received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA.

42498201. Das, Y. 1990. Photodegradation of (S-Methyl- 14 C)-Aldicarb in Aqueous Solution Buffered at pH 5 unde r Artificial Sunlight . Lab Project Number: 90021. Unpublished study prepared by Innovative Scientific Services, Inc. 91 p.

42498202. Dykes, J. 1990. Soil Adsorption/Desorption with 14 C-Aldicarb . Lab Project Number: 37352. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 326

p.

46793701. Jones, R.L., and T.S. Ramanarayanan. 2006. TEMIK® brand 15G Aldicarb Pesticida: Summary of Five Retrospective Ground Wa ter Monitoring Studies conducted for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in the Pacifi c Northwest, California, Texas, Mississippi Delta and the Southeast Regions of the United States in 2005. Bayer CropScience Study

No. RAAVY010.

46793702 . Freeseman, P.I., R.L. Jones, R.E. Lee, U.B. Handihalli, and D.R. Wyatt. 2006. A Retrospective Groundwater Monitoring Study fo r Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in the Pacific Northwest. Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY005.

46793703. Lenz, M, R.L. Jones, D.R. Wyatt, U.B. Handihalli, and R.E. Lee. 2006 . A Retrospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in California . Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY006.

46793704. Mosier, D.G., R.L. Jones, U.B. Handihalli, and R.E. Lee. 2006. A Retrospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldi carb and Its Metabolites in Texas. Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY007.48 46793705.Wyatt, D.R., R.L. Jones, U.B. Handihalli, and R.E. Lee. 2006. A Retrospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in Mississippi Delta Region. Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY008.

46793706. Lee, R.E., R.L. Jones, D.R. Wyatt, and U.B. Handihalli. 2006. A Retrospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in the Southeastern
United States. Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY009.49 Ecological Effects Studies

098301 Aldicarb Eco Effects Bibliography 71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

102038 Hudson, R.; Tucker, R.; Haegele, M. (1972) Effect of age on sensitivity: Acute oral toxicity of 14 pest icides to mallard ducks of several ages. Toxicology and Applied Pharma cology (22):556- 561. (Also In unpublished submission received Oct 26, 1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:096397-E)

107398 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Brown, R. (1979) Final Report: Acute Oral LD50-- Mallard Duck: Technical Grade Aldicarb: Project No. 142- 119. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1979 under 1016-78; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:099120-A)

148695 Balcomb, R.; Stevens, R.; Bowen, C. (1984) Toxicity of 16 granular insecticides to wild-caught songbirds. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 33:302-307

. 148698 Benjamini, L. (1981) Testing aldi carb as a bird repellent in a sprouting sugar beet field

. Phytoparasitica 9(2):89-94.

148703 Hill, E.; Camardese, M. (1984) Toxicity of anticholinesterase insecticides to birds: Technical grade versus granular formula- tions. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 8:551-563

. 148704 Hilbig, V.; Westphal, D.; Lucas, K.; et al. (1979) Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Vogeltoxizitaet mit Zwei Granulatformulier- ungen des Nematizides Temik [Comparative Studies of the Toxicity to Birds of Two Granulated Formulations of Temik Nematocides]: Vetmed-Berichte 2/1979. Unpublished study prepared by Institute of Veterinary Medicine. 24 p.

148707 Medd, R.; Burrows, I.; Roberts, N .; et al. (1972) The Determination of the Single Dose Oral LD50 (24 Hour Value) and Residual Levels of Temik (Coal) in the Pheasant: Amended: 5355/72/751. Unpub- lished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 28 p.

148709 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1977) A Comparison of the Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) of Three Formulations of Temik to the Japanese Quail: UNC 68 W/771042. Unpublished study prepared by Hun- tingdon Research Centre. 12 p.

5008363 Hudson, R.H.; Haegele, M.A.; Tucker, R.K. (1979) Acute oral and percutaneous toxicity of pesticides to mallards: correlations with mammalian toxicity data. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 47(3):451-460.

42446501 Kendall, R. (1992) Behavior, Su rvivability and Biochemical Response of Wild Northern Bobwhites (Colinus virginianus) Dosed with Temik: Lab Project Number: 08034. Unpublished study prepared by Clemson Univ., Inst. of Wildlife and Environ. Tox. 34 p.

00160000 Hudson, R.; Tucker, R.; Haegele, M. (1984) Handbook of toxicity of50 pesticides to wildlife: Second edition. US Fish and Wildlife Service: Resource Publication 153. 91 p. 71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

76066 Woodard Research Co rporation (1965) UC-21 149: Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife: (Bobwhite Qua il and Rainbow Trout). (Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-B)

76067 Beliles, R.P.; Knott, W.; Wright, L. (1966) UC-21149 10%: Summary of Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife. Summary of studies 231174-A and 231174-B. (Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016- 69; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-D)

80706 Beliles, R.P.; Knott, W.; Wright, L. (1966) UC-21149: Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife: (Bobwhite Quail and Rainbow Trout). (Unpublished study received Mar 2, 1967 unde r 7F0573; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Charleston, W.Va.; CDL:090072-O)

102132 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Brown, R. (1979) Final Report: Eight-day Dietary LC50--Bobwhite Quail: Technical Gr ade Aldicarb: Project No. 142-118. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1979 under 1016-78; prepared by Wildlife International Ltd., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:099120-B)

115301 Hill, E.; Camardese, M. (1981) Subacute toxicity testing with young birds: Response in relation to age and interest variabil- ity of LC50 estimates. Avian and Mammalian Wildlife Toxicology 2:41-65

. (Also In unpublished submission received Oct 7, 1982 under 201-142; submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; CDL:248514-U)

148706 Medd, R.; Roberts, N. (1972) Palatability and Acceptability of Te- mik (Corn Cob and Coal Formulations) to the Pheasant and the Pi- geon: 5419/72/815. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Re- search Centre. 31 p.

22923 Hill, E.F.; Heath, R.G.; Spann, J.W.; et al. (1975) Lethal Dietary
Toxicities of Environmental Pollutants to Birds: Special Scientific Report- -Wildlife No. 191. (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; unpublished report)

45592114 Handley, J.; Grant-Salmon, D.; Ba rtlett, A. (1995) The Acute Toxicity of Aldicarb Sulfoxide to Daphnia Magna: Lab Project Number: 282/442. Unpublished study prepared by Safepha rm Laboratories Limited. 26 p.

Aldicarb sulfone = PC Code 110802

71-3 Mammal Acute

101957 Lavoie, K. (1963) Bioassay Record: UC-21149: Peromyscus: Test No. R-14. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Research Center; unpublished study, CDL:091373-AC)

43961101 McCann, J.; Teeters, W.; Urban, D. et al. (1981) A short-term dietary51 toxicity test on small mammals. p. 132-142 of the Second Conference of Avian and Mammalian Wildlife Toxicology, Lamb, D.; Kenaga, E. Eds.; Published in American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM STP 757; 1981. 71-5 Simulated or Actual Field Testing

MRID Citation Reference

100231 or
101959 Lund, R.C.; Haines, R.G. (1969) Field Evaluation of Temik 10G Aldicarb
Pesticide Potential Hazard to Whitetail Deer and Cottontail Rabbits from Simulated Spills. (Unpublished study re- ceived Oct 27, 1969 under 1016-EX-30; prepared in cooperation with New Jersey, Fish and Game Commission, Black River State Game Field Station, submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:126506-C)

101956 Back, R. (1968) Temik 10G Gr anular Pesticide: Field Evaluation of Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. (Unpublished study received Apr 18, 1969 under 9F0798; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York, NY; CDL:091373-AB)

101960 Clarkson, V.; Haines, R.; Hennsley, W.; et al. (1969) Report on
Additional Field Tests with Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide on the Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. (Unpublished study received Aug 20, 1970 under 0F1008; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, DC; CDL:091748-C)

101961 Haines, R. (1970) Field Evaluation of Potential Hazard of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and Ring-necked Pheasants: Trial I

. (Unpublished study received Aug 20, 1970 under 0F1008; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, DC; CDL:091748-D)

101962 Haines, R. (1970) Field Evaluations of Potential Hazard of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and Ring-necked Pheas- ants: Trial II

. (Unpublished study received Aug 20, 1970 under 0F1008; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, DC; CDL:091748-E)

102167 Union Carbide Corp. (1968) Temik 10G Insecticide: Field Evaluation of Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. (Unpublished study re- ceived Dec 5, 1968 under 1016-EX-30; CDL:131937-A)

132989 Ashton, A.; Jackson, W. (1983) Letter sent to Union Carbide dated Nov 18, 1983: Temik field trial (Michigan) : Effects on wild- life|. (Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1983 under 264-330; prepared by Bowling Green State Univ., submitted by Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC; CDL:251947-A)

144970 Jackson, W. (1984) Letter sent to T. DeWitt dated June 21, 1984: [A Field study to evaluate the hazard to birds in Corn Fields treated with Temik. 6 p.

148685 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Eichler, A. (1977) Temik 10G--Gypsum Formulation (Blue): Wildlife Surveys following Application to Four Sugar Beet and Four Potato Fields: UNC 57/774581. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 255 p.

148691 Tait, F. (1972) Aldicarb: Wild Life Survey 1972. Unpublished study prepared by Duphar-Midox Ltd. 28 p.52 148692 United Kingdom, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, Pest Infestation Control Laboratory (1974) A Study of the Effects of Aldicarb or Wildlife. Unpublished study. 65 p.

148693 Brown, P.; Bunyan, P.; Stanley, P .; et al. (1975) Field Surveil- lance of
the Possible Wildlife Hazards Associated with the Use of the Nematicide, Aldicarb: Chemistry Department Report No. 17. Unpublished study prepared by U.K. Mi nistry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Pest Infestation Control Laboratory. 57 p.

148696 Back, R. (1968) Temik 10G Gr anular Pesticide: Field Evaluation of Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. Unpublished study prepared by Union Carbide Corp. 15 p.

148697 Benjamini, L. (1981) The efficacy of seed treatment with aldicarb to
establish conditioned aversion in bi rds to sprouting sugar beets. Phytoparasitica 9(1):3-9

. 148698 Benjamini, L. (1981) Testing aldi carb as a bird repellent in a sprouting sugar beet field. Phytoparasitica 9(2):89-94

. 148699 Clarkson, V.; Rowe, B. (1970) Te mik Insecticide: Field Evaluations of the Toxic Hazard of Temik Formulations 10G, 10GV, 10GC and 10GVB4 to Bobwhite Quail: Project No. 111B32: File No. 12676. Unpublished study prepared by Union Carbide Corp. 15 p.

148700 or
101962 or
101961 Haines, R. (1970) Temik 10G Granular Pesticide: Field Evaluations of Potential Hazard of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and Ring-necked Pheasants in Sugar Beet Plantings: Trial III. Unpublished study prepared by Union Carbide Corp. 8 p.

148701 Haines, R. (1971) Continued Field Evaluations on the Potential Haz- ard of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and Ring- necked Pheasants in a Cotton Planting. Unpu blished study pre- pared by Union Carbide Corp. 7 p.

148702 Haines, R. (1971) Continued Field Evaluations on the Potential Hazards of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Bob White Quail in Cot- ton Plantings. Unpublished study prepared by Union Carbide Corp. 7 p.

148705 Lund, R. (1970) Summary of Fiel d Observations: Potential Hazard of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Ring-necked Pheasant ... from Simulated Spills. Unpublished study pr epared by State of New Jersey, Dept. of Conservation and Economic Development, Black River Wildlife Management Area. 2 p.

148706 Medd, R.; Roberts, N. (1972) Palatability and Acceptability of Te- mik (Corn Cob and Coal Formulations) to the Pheasant and the Pi- geon: 5419/72/815. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Re- search Centre. 31 p.

40607502 Fletcher, D. (1988) Application of Temik Brand 15G Aldicarb to Three Major Crops: A Terrestrial Verbebrate Field Study: BLAL Study No. 87 FV 3. Unpublished study prepared by Bi o-Life Associates, Ltd. 536 p.

100230 Clarkson, V.A.; Haines, R.G.; H ennsley, W.H.; et al. (1969) Report on
Additional Field Tests with Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide on the Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. (Unpublished study re- ceived Oct 27, 1969 under 1016-EX-30; submitted by Union Carbide Corp.,53 Arlington, Va.; CDL:126506-B)

100409 Haines, R. (1970) Field Evaluations of Potential Hazard of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and Ring-necked Pheas- ants: Trial Two. (Unpublished study received Jan 25, 1978 under 1016-79; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:096734-K)

72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

MRID Citation Reference

60555 or
92405 Borash, A.J. (1965) Test Report on Union Carbide Agricultural Products. (Unpublished study received Jun 1, 1965 under unknown admin. no.; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:128692-G)

60556 Cope, O.B. (1964) Letter sent to Robert G. Harris dated Oct 30, 1964 Toxicity of various pesticides to rainbow trout and blue- gill sunfish|. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fi sh-Pesticide Research Laboratory; unpublished study; CDL:128692-H)

61089 Borash, A.J.; Bryant, H.M., Jr. (1965) Test Report on Union Carbide Agricultural Products. (Unpublis hed study received Jun 10, 1965 under 1016-EX-18; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:126458-K)

76065 Knott, W.; Beliles, R.P. (1966) UC-21149: Acute Toxicity in Sunfish. (Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016-69; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-A)

76066 Woodard Research Co rporation (1965) UC-21 149: Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife: (Bobwhite Qua il and Rainbow Trout). (Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-B)

76067 Beliles, R.P.; Knott, W.; Wright, L. (1966) UC-21149 10%: Summary of Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife. Summary of studies 231174-A and 231174-B. (Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016- 69; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-D)

80706 Beliles, R.P.; Knott, W.; Wright, L. (1966) UC-21149: Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife: (Bobwhite Quail and Rainbow Trout). (Unpublished study received Mar 2, 1967 unde r 7F0573; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Charleston, W.Va.; CDL:090072-O)

80707 Knott, W.; Beliles, R.P. (1966) UC- 21149: Acute Toxicity in Sun- fish. (Unpublished study received Mar 2, 1967 under 7F0573; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Charleston, W.Va.; CDL:090072-P)

81883 Union Carbide Corporation (1965) Toxicity to Fish and Wildlife. (Compilation; unpublished study received May 10, 1965 under 5G0452; CDL:090494-B)

100296 Clarkson, V.A.; Hensley, W.H. (1968) Temik Insecticide: Toxicity of54 Temik, Temik Sulfoxide, and Temik Sulfone to Bluegill Sunfish: File No. 10493. (Unpublished study received Jan 25, 1978 under 1016-79; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:096727-B)

102133 Schneider, C. (1979) The Acute Toxicity of Aldicarb Technical to the Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri Richardson): UCES Proj. No. 11504- 14-03. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1979 under 1016-78; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:099120-C)

102134 Schneider, C. (1979) The Acute Toxicity of Aldicarb Technical to the Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochi rus Rafinesque): UCES Proj. No. 11504-14-04. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1979 under 1016- 78; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:099120-D)

102145 Borash, A.; Bryant, H. (1965) Test Report on Union Carbide Agricultural Products: (Toxicity to Goldfish). (Unpublished study received Sep 9, 1965 under 1016-EX-24; CDL:126467-A)

139863 or
53353 Clarkson, V.A.; Hensley, W.H. (1968 ) Temik Insecticide: Toxicity of Temik, Temik Sulfoxide, and Temik Sulfone Bluegill Sunfish. Project No. 111B32. (Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-EX-37; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:238153-C)

5010817 Coppage, D.L. (1977) Anticholinesterase action of pesticidal carbamates in the central nervous system of poisoned fishes. Pages 93- 102, In Physiological Responses of Marine Biota to Pollutants, Proceedings of a Symposium; Nov, 1975, Milford, Connecticut. Edited by F.J. Vernberg, A. Calabrese, F. P. Thurberg and W.B. Vernberg. New
York: Academic Press.

40098001 Mayer, F.; Ellersieck, M. (1986) Manual of Acute Toxicity: Interpretation and Data Base for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of
Freshwater Animals. US Fish & Wild life Service, Resource Pub- lication 160. 579 p.

44598601 Pickering, Q.; Gilliam, W. (1982) Toxicity of aldicarb and fonofos to the early-life-stage of the fathead minnow. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
11:699-702.

45592113 Odin-Feurtet, M. (1999) Aldicarb: Acute Toxicity (96-Hour) to Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) u nder Static Conditions: Lab Project Number: SA 99331. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Agro. 74 p.

45592115 Odin-Feurtet, M. (1998) Aldicarb Sulfoxide: Acute Toxicity (96 Hours) to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus myki ss) under Flow-Through Conditions:Lab Project Number: SA 98081. Unpublished study prepared by RhonePoulenc Agro. 65 p. PC Code 110802

45592117 McElligott, A. (1998 ) Aldicarb Sulfone: Acute Toxicity (96 Hours) to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus myki ss) under Flow-Through Conditions:Lab Project Number: SA 98082. Unpublished study prepared by RhonePoulenc Agro. 64 p. Aldicarb Sulfone = PC Code 118201
72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

MRID Citation Reference

107395 Vilkas, A. (1977) The Acute Toxicity of Aldicarb Technical to the Water55 Flea ...: UCES Proj. #11504-14-01. (U npublished study received Dec 19, 1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:096683-A)

45592114 72-3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms

MRID Citation Reference

66341 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory (1981) Acephate, Aldica rb, Carbophenothion, DEF, EPN, Ethoprop, Methyl Parathion, and Phorate: Their Acute and Chronic Toxicity, Bioconcentration Potential, and Persistence as Related to Marine Environments: EPA-600/4- 81-023. (Unpublished study)

102036 Heitmuller, T. (1972) Letter sent to S. Ichikawa dated Jan 7, 1972 Toxicity of Temik to grass shrimp|. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze Laboratory; unpublished study; CDL:096397-B)

40228401 USEPA Gulbreeze Laboratory Study Reports- multiple species
72-4 Fish Early Life Stage/A quatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study

MRID Citation Reference

66341 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory (1981) Acephate, Aldica rb, Carbophenothion, DEF, EPN, Ethoprop, Methyl Parathion, and Phorate: Their Acute and Chronic Toxicity, Bioconcentration Potential, and Persistence as Related to Marine Environments: EPA-600/4- 81-023. (Unpublished study)

44598601 Pickering, Q.; Gilliam, W. (1982) Toxicity of aldicarb and fonofos to the early-life-stage of the fathead minnow. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
11:699-702. 72-7 Simulated or Actual Field Testing

MRID Citation Reference

61078 Mulla, M.S. (1964) Letter sent to R.G. Haines dated Oct 20, 1964 Information on toxicity of some compounds against mosquito fish|. (Unpublished study received Oct 20, 1964 under unknown admin. no.; prepared by Univ. of California--Riversi de, Div. of Agricultural Sciences, Citrus Research Center and Agricult ural Experiment Station, Dept. of Entomology, submitted by Union Car- bide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:131936-A)

141-1 Honey bee and Beneficial Insect Acute Toxicity

117840 Johansen, C.; Eves, J. (1967) Bee Research Investigations, 1967. (Unpublished study received Oct 13, 1969 under 0F0897; prepared by Washington State Univ., submitted by Fisons Corp., Wilming- ton, MA; CDL:091551-H)

149696 Johansen, C.; Mayer, D.; Eves, J .; et al. (1983) Pesticides and bees.56 Environ. Entomology 12(5):1513-1518

. 91958 Ridgway, R.L.; Cowan, C.B. (1966) A Report on Laboratory and Field
Studies on the Effect of Several Insect icides on Beneficial Arthropods in 1966: ?Mobay| 20268. (U.S. Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Div., Cotton Insects Systemic Chemicals Investigations and Southwestern Cotton Insects In- vestigations; unpublished study; CDL:120463-D)

36935 Atkins, E.L.; Greywood, E.A.; Macdonald, R.L. (1975) Toxicity ofPesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals to Honey Bees: Laboratory Studies. By University of Calif ornia, Dept. of Entomolo- gy. ?: UC, Cooperative Extension. (L eaflet 2287; published study.) 142-3 Simulated or Actual Field Testing

MRID Citation Reference

102104 Atkins, E.; Kellum, D.; Atkins, K. (1977) Repellent Additives to Reduce Pesticide Hazards to Honey Bees: Maximizing the Effec- tiveness of Bees as Pollinators of Agricultural Crops: Project No. 3565-RR (W-139). Final rept. (Unpublished study received Jan 27, 1978 under 10182-17; prepared by Univ. of California-- Rive rside, Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Dep t. of Entomology, submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:096765-N)



### Non Guideline Selections

53386 Spurr, H.W., Jr.; Sousa, A.A. (1974) Potential interactions of Al- dicarb and its metabolites on nontarget organisms in the envi- ronment. Journal of Environmental Quality 3(2):130-133

. (Also In unpublished submission received jan 18, 1977 under 1016-EX- 37; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL: 228979-AA)

93913 Westlake, G.E.; Bunyan, P.J.; Mart in, A.D.; et al. (1981) Carbam- ate poisoning: Effects of selected carbam ate pesticides on plasma enzymes and brain esterases of Japanese qu ail (Coturnix cotornix japonica). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 29(4):779-784. (Also In unpublished submission received Jan 26, 1982 under 239-2471; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:246657-J)

98468 Stauffer Chemical Company (1980) Comparison of Acute Oral Avian Toxicology between Dyfonate^(R)I 20-G Insecticide and Other Corn Granular Insecticides. (Unpublished study received Oct 24, 1980 under 476-2028; CDL:243582-A)

102197 Yu, C.; Kearns, C.; Metcalf, R. (1972) Acetylcholinesterase in- hibition by substituted phenyl N-alkyl carbamates

. J. Agr. Fd. Chem. 20(3):537- 540. (Also In unpublished submission re- ceived Dec 11, 1979 under 264-322; submitted by Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Inc., Ambler, PA; CDL:241454-C)

102198 Hastings, F.; Main, A.; Iverson, F. (1970) Carbamylation and affinity constants of some carbamate inhibitors of acetylcholinesterase and their relation to analogous substrate constants. J. Agr. Food Chem.57 18(3):497-502. (Also In unpublished submission received Dec 11, 1979 under 264-322; submitted by Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Inc., Ambler, PA; CDL:241454-D)

102199 Reiner, E. (1971) Spontaneous reactivation of phosphorylated and carbamylated cholinesterases. Bull Wld Hlth Org. 44:109-112. (Published study; CDL:241454-E)

148686 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1978) A Comparison of the Palatability to the Ring-necked Pheasant of Three Formulations of Temik 10 G with Other Granular Pesticides: UNC/69C/78938. Un- published study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 23 p.

148687 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1978) A Comparison of the Palatability to the Zebra Finch of Tw o Formulations of Temik: UNC 69 G/78398. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 16 p.

148688 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1978) A Comparison of the Palatability to the Ring-necked Pheasant of Two Formulations of Te- mik: UNC 69 G/78399. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 14 p.

148689 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1979) The Effect of Granule Size
on the Toxic Hazard to Passeriformes of Temik 10G: UNC 69B/ 78721. Unpublished study prepared by Huntin gdon Research Cen- tre. 16 p.

148690 Stickel, W. (1979) Letter sent to R. Back dated May 29, 1979: [Comments on "Report on palatability studies and trials regarding the acute toxicity of the plant protection products Temik 10 G and Temik 10 GGF (gypsum) with Japanese quails, ch ickens and sparrows"]. Prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Pa - tuxent Wildlife Research Center. 3

p.

148694 Spencer, D. (1985) A Review of the Research Conducted on the Toxicity and Potential Hazard of Granular Formulations of Aldicarb (Temik) to Bird Life. Unpublished study. 32 p.

148708 Relton, J. (1970) Wild Life Survey: Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide on Sugar Beets: Suffolk, England, 1970. Unpublished study. 11 p.

41255501 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1989) Biological Opinion on Selected Pesticides. Unpublished study. 891 p.

41377100 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1990) Submission of Biological Opinion Data for Selected Pesticides. Transmittal of 1 study.

41377101 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1989) Biological Opinion Log on Selected Pesticides. Unpublished study. 677 p.

1982 Biological Opinion

41708603 Hobson, J. (1990) Aldicarb: Response to the Review by the Ecologi- cal Effects Branch of the 1987 Temik Terrestrial Vertebrate Field Study. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co. 20 p.

41708604 Kendall, R. (1990) Behavior, Su rvivability and Biochemical Response of Wild Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura) Dosed with Aldicarb: Final Research Report Phase I: Lab Project Number: 08035. Unpub- lished58 study prepared by Clemson Univ., In stitute of Wildlife and Environ. Toxicology. 29 p.

42316001 Smith, K. (1992) Clinical Necr opsy report on three red-tailed hawks found near Edgefield, South Carolina. Prepared by Univ. of Ga., College of Veterinary Med. 2 p.

42316100 Univ. of Georgia (1992) Submis sion of an incident report involving Temik in the wildlife kill of a gray fox. Data submitted under FIFRA 6(a)(2). Transmittal of 1 study.

42316101 Smith, K. (1992) Clinical Necr opsy Report on a Gray Fox Found near Edgefield, South Carolina. Unpublis hed study prepared by Univ. of Georgia, College of Veterinary Med. 2 p.

42316200 Univ. of Georgia (1992) Submis sion of an incident report involving
Temik in a wildlife kill of raccoons. Data submitted under FIFRA 6(a)(2). Transmittal of 1 study.

42316201 Smith, K. (1992) Clinical Ne cropsy Record on a Raccoon Found near Edgefield, South Carolina. Unpublished study prepared by Univ. of Ga., College of Veterinary Med. 2 p.

42316500 Rhone-Poulenc Ag. Co. (1992) Submission of incident reports under FIFRA 6(a)(2) Status (Adverse effe cts and incident report) to support the reregistration of Temik (Aldicarb) pesticide. Transmittal of 1 study.

42316501 Davis, W. (1992) Letter Sent to S. Haddad dated May 11, 1992: ?Death of dogs and cats in two separate incidents related to Temik (Aldicarb)|. 2

p.

46655401 Moore, D.; Thompson, R.; Purbrick, S. (2005) Problem Formulation for the Refined Aquatic Risk Assessme nt of Aldicarb. Project Number: 201373, 88380. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 31 p.

46655402 Moore, D.; Purbrick, S.; Thomps on, R. (2005) Problem Formulation for the Refined Wildlife Risk Assessment of Aldicarb. Project Number: 201374, 88380. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 37 p.

46792601 Hall, L. (2006) Temik Brand 15G Aldicab Pesticide Crop and Geographical Usage Information (A Reference Provided for an Endangered Species Assessment of Aldicarb). Project Number: G201481. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Cropscience LP. 76 p.

46796102 Moore, D.; Thompson, R.; Purb rick, S. (2006) Refined Aquatic Risk Assessment for Aldicarb. Project Number: 201482. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 234 p.

46796103 Moore, D.; Purbrick, S.; Teed, R.; et. al. (2006) Refined Wildlife Risk Assessment for Aldicarb. Project Number: 201483, 88390. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 493 p.

46873101 Best, L.; Brewer, L.; Klaine, S .; et. al. (2006) Refined Ecological Risk Assessment for Aldicarb Expert Peer Review Panel Process and Comments. Project Number: EPR/32306. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience LP. 10 p.

47124601 Fisher, D.; Ramanarayanan, T.; Moore, D.; et al. (2007) Effects59 Determination for California Red-Legged Frog Potentially Exposed to Aldicarb. Project Number: 88380, 201692. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental, Inc. 138 p.

47164600 Croplife America (2007) Submission of Environmental Fate and Exposure and Risk Data in Support of the Preservation of the California Red Legged Frog. Transmittal of 2 Studies.

47164601 Moore, D.; Breton, R.; Rodney , S.; et al. (2007) Generic Problem Formulation for California Red-Legged Frog. Project Number: 89320, 05232007. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 87 p.

47164602 Holmes, C.; Vamshi, R. (2007) Data and Methodology Used for Spatial Analysis of California Red Legged Frog Observations and Proximate Land Cover Characteristics. Project Number: 3152007, WEI/252/03. Unpublished study prepared by Wate rborne Environmental, Inc. (WEI). 19 p.

101909 Union Carbide Corp. (1969) Temik Aldicarb Pesticide: The Potential Hazard from Ingestion of Treated Plant Tissue. (Unpublished study received Nov 5, 1969 under 1016-69; CDL:024310-F)

102199 Reiner, E. (1971) Spontaneous reactivation of phosphorylated and carbamylated cholinesterases. Bull Wld Hlth Org. 44:109-112

. (Published study; CDL:241454-E)

42243301 W. Davis (1992) Letter Sent to S. Haddad dated February 19, 1992: Concerning deaths of an ocelot, two oppossums, and four raccoons at Atascosa Wildlife Refuge in Rio Hondo, Texas|. Prepared by RhonePoulenc Ag. Co. 1 p.

53383 or
102053 or
104568 Romine, R.R.; Meeker, R.L. (1973) Accumulation of Aldicarb Residues in Fish Tissue from Chronic Exposure to Aldicarb, Aldicarb sulfoxide and Aldicarb sulfone in Aquaria Water: Project No. 111A13. (Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-EX-37; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:228979-X)60 Appendix A. Ecological Effects Data

Toxicity testing reported in this section does not repr esent all species of birds, mammals, or aquatic organisms. Only a few surrogate species for both freshwater fish and birds are used to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the United States. Mammalian acute studies are usually limited to Norway or New Zealand rat or the house mouse. Estuarine/marine testing is usually limited to a crustacean, a mollusk, and a fish. Also, neither reptiles nor amphibians are tested. The risk assessment assumes that avian and reptilian toxicities are similar. The same assumption is used for fish and amphibians in the aquatic environment. The following information was ta ken from previous assessments and updated if
recent studies were submitted.

Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals

Birds, Acute and Subacute

The acute oral LD 50 is 1.0 mg/kg-bw for aldicarb, and 33.5 mg/kg-bw for aldicarb sulfone. The most sensitive species tested for both aldicarb an d aldicarb sulfone is the mallard duck. Aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone are categorized as very high ly toxic and highly toxic to avian species on an acute oral basis, respectively (MRID 107398).

The most sensitive species tested on a subacute 5- d dietary basis for both aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone is the bobwhite quail. The 5-d LC 50 is 71 ppm for aldicarb, and 5706 ppm for aldicarb sulfone (or sulfocarb). Aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone are categoriz ed as very highly toxic and practically nontoxic to avian spec ies, respectively (MRID 00102132 & 1096727).

Birds, Chronic

The avian reproduction studies submitted by the regi strant were both classified as supplemental (MRIDs 48156905 & 48198801).

MRID 48156905 is a one-generation reproductive toxicity study i nvolving dietary exposures of Northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) to aldicarb. Aldicarb was administered to the
birds in the diet at nominal concentrations of 0 (vehicle control), 2, 10, and 50 mg ai/kg diet (corrected for purity). Mean-measured concen trations were <0.2 (<LOQ, control), 1.8, 8.3, and 43 mg ai/kg diet, respectively. This study is sc ientifically sound but classified supplemental because of small cage sizes and because the test was unable to detect up to 25% difference in treatment animal endpoints compared to contro ls. This study may not be used to fulfill the guideline requirement. Although none of the endpoints in the treated groups displayed statistically significant differen ces compared to controls, several of the endpoints had 10-25% difference in the two highest treatments. Thes e endpoints include: number of eggs laid/pen, number of eggs set/pen, number of viable embryos/pen, number of live embryos/pen, number of hatchlings/pen, hatchling survival /pen. In addition, adult body weight gain was also decreased in
these treatments. The revi ewer concluded that these differen ces may be biologi cally significant. Therefore, the NOAEC of this study is set to th e lowest test concentration (i.e., 1.8 mg a.i./kgdiet) and the LOAEC is 8.3 mg a.i./kg-diet.61 MRID 48198801 is a one-generation reproductive toxicity study i nvolving dietary exposures of mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) to aldicarb. Aldicarb was admi nistered to the birds in the
diet at nominal concentrations of 0 (vehicle control), 3, 15, and 75 mg ai/kg diet (corrected for purity). Mean-measured concentrations were <1 .0 (<LOQ, control), 3, 15, and 72 mg ai/kg diet, respectively. There were slight , but statistically-si gnificant (p<0.05) effect s on several endpoints at the 15 mg ai/kg diet level; however, these effects were not obs erved at the next highest level (i.e., 72 mg a.i./kg diet). At the 15 mg a.i. /kg diet level, there wa s a significant (p=0.016) increase in the number of eggs cracked, with an average of 0.25 eggs cracked per pen in the control versus 1.31 eggs per pen in the 15 mg ai/kg diet group. No other treatment level exhibited a higher incident of cracked eggs, but the 15 mg ai/kg diet leve l continued to exhibit reductions in the number of eggs set to eggs laid (p=0.010; 3.5% reduction fr om control), ratio of 14-day survivors to number hatched (p=0.04; 0.6 % reduction), and hatchling weights (p=0.004; 5.8% reduction). No other treatment-related effect s were observed at any concentration level for any adult, reproductive, or offspring paramete r. Despite the observation of statistically significant effects at the 15 mg ai/kg level, the reviewer concluded that these effects were not
related to the test substance because similar effects were not observed at the next highest treatment level (i.e., 72 mg a.i./kg diet), which was a factor of 5 greater than the level were
effects were observed. This study is scientifical ly sound; however, it does not satisfy the guideline requirement for a mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) reproductive toxi city study. This study is classified supplemental because a LOAEC was not established in the study and the study report does not indicate the maximu m field residue that would be expected based on application rates of aldicarb. Therefore, it is unknown if the hi ghest level tested was an appropriate level to approximate the maximum expected field residues.

Mammals, Acute

Rat toxicity values obtained from the Agency's Health Effects Division (HED) substitute for wild mammal testing. Aldicarb is categorized as very highly toxic to small ma mmals on an acute oral
basis with a rat LD 50 of 0.9 mg/kg-bw (MRID 00057333).

Mammals, Chronic

In a 2-generation reproduction study reviewed by HED (MRID 42148401), rats were exposed to
aldicarb in their diet at concen trations of 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 ppm. Exposure consistently led to decreased dam body weight gain (parental LOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kg-bw; NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kgbw). Aldicarb treatment also caused lower su rvivability and pup weight s in offspring of all litters (reproductive LOAEL = 1.4 - 1.7 mg/kg- bw; NOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kg-bw). These toxicity values are similar to the acute oral LD 50 mammalian values and suggest that mammals that survive acute aldicarb exposure may su ffer adverse reproductive effects from chronic

exposure.

Beneficial Insects

A honey bee acute contact study using the TGAI is not required for aldicarb due to its granular formulation. However, aldicarb is categorized highly toxic to bees on an acute c ontact basis with

an LD 50 of 0.285 ug/bee (MRID 00036935). It is rec ognized that potential honey bee exposure may occur due to the systemic nature of aldicar b. Because of its granular formulation, it is62 unlikely that there is a direct contact exposure scenario for honey bees; however, these and other beneficial insects could be exposed to aldicarb and aldicarb residues thr ough contact with plants
and soil.

Earthworms

Soil-dwelling invertebrates, such as earthworms , can play important roles in maintaining soil fertility and facilitating organic matter degradation, as well as an important food source for birds and mammals. A study by Mosleh et al (2003) demonstrated an earthworm ( Aporrectodea caliginosa ) 28-day LC 50 of 0.68 ppm.

Toxicity to Terre strial Plants

Terrestrial plant testing is required for pesticides other than herbicid es if data from the literature indicate that a pesticide is phytotoxic. A tier I seedling emergence study (MRID 4704401) is classified supplemental and cannot be used to fulfill the guideline requirement for 850.4100. This study is upgradable if a Tier II seedling emergence study is submitted for ryegrass and

tomato.

Summary of review of MRID 47904401

The effect of Temik 15 G (AI: Aldicarb) on the seedling emergence of monocot (corn, Zea mays ; oat, Avena sativa ; onion, Allium cepa ; and ryegrass, Lolium perenne ) and dicot (cucumber,

Cucumis sativus ; oilseed rape, Brassica napus ; sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris ; soybean, Glycine max ; sunflower, Helianthus annuus ; and tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum ) crops was studied at nominal concentrations of 0 (neg ative control) and 75 kg product/ha, which is equivalent to 11.5 kg ai/ha (10.3 lb ai/A). The growth medium used in the se edling emergence test was a mixture of natural soil (silt loam) and washed sand ; pH 7.24, organic carbon 0.63%. On day 21, the surviving plants per pot were recorded and cut at soil level for measuri ng the plant height and dry weight.

The most sensitive monocot species was ryegrass, with a 12 and 44% difference in shoot length and weight, respectively, compared to the contro l. The most sensitive dicot species was tomato, with a 28 and 25% difference in shoot length and weight, respectively, comp ared to the control. Phytotoxic effects, including st unting and necrosis, were obser ved in ryegrass and tomatoes. Based on the observance of >25% effects in ryeg rass and tomato, a tier II study consistent with OCSPP guideline 850.4225 and using these two species is necessary to fulfill the guideline requirement for 850.4100. The Tier I studies wi th ryegrass and tomato are considered supplemental. The data from the Tier I studies with corn, oat, onion, cucumber, oilseed rape, soybean, sugarbeet and sunflower ar e all considered acceptable. Ov erall, this toxicity study is classified supplemental and does not satisfy the guideline requirement for a seedling emergence toxicity study because >25% effects were observe d in two species (i.e., ryegrass and tomato) and tier II studies have not been submitted for those species.63 Toxicity to Freshwater Animals

Freshwater Fish, Acute

Aldicarb

Since the 96-h LC 50 values ranged from 52 to 110 ppb ai, al dicarb is categori zed as very highly toxic to highly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. The most sensitive of these results was the 52 ppb ai for the bluegill sunfish (Mayer and Ellersieck 1986) c onducted under static conditions. A supplemental acute toxicity test c onducted under static conditions reported a 96-h
LC 50 for aldicarb of 110 ppb ai for juvenile bluegill sunfish. Because of the static conditions, it is likely this value reflects contribution of parent aldicarb and its degradates. The bluegill sunfish
96-h LC 50 of 52 ppb ai was chosen to calculate acute risk quotients from exposure to aldicarb because it is the most sensitive endpoint of the 96-h LC 50 values. There was an acute value for fathead minnow exposed to aldicarb found in th e public literature but it was only for a 48 hour study, therefore it is likely an unde restimate of aldicarb toxicity to this species at 96 hours and is therefore classified as supplemental information.

Acute Toxicity Endpoints for Freshwater Fish

Species Endpoint (ppb ai) MRID/Reference

Aldicarb Bluegill sunfish 96-h LC 50 = 52 ppb ai MRID 40098001and MRID3503 (Mayer and Ellersieck 1986)

Rainbow trout 96-h LC 50 = 560 ppb ai MRID 40098001and MRID 3503 (Mayer and Ellersieck

Fathead minnow 48-hr LC 50 = 8,860 ppb ai Moore. et al . 1998 (Supplemental information as this is only a 48-h study)

Aldica r b sulfoxide

Rain bow tr ou t 96 -h L C 50 = 7, 14 0 ppb ai MRID 4 559 211 5

Aldica r b sulfone

Rainbow trout 96-h LC 50 = 42,000 ppb ai Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 1976)

Rainbow trout 96-h LC 50 > 106,000 ppb ai MRID 45592117

Aldicarb sulfoxide

A flow through acute toxicity test using the degradate aldi carb sulfoxide was conducted on
rainbow trout. A 96-h LC 50 of 7,140 ppb was reported which is classified as moderately toxic (MRID 45592115).

Aldicarb sulfone64 An acute toxicity test conducte d on rainbow trou t using the degradate al dicarb sulfone had a 96-h
LC 50 of 42,000 ppb ai. This is characterized as slightly toxic [Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 1976)]. A flow through acute toxicity test using aldicarb sulfone had a 96-h LC 50 greater than 106,000 ppb ai for rainbow trout, which is characteri zed as practically non toxic (MRID 45592117).

Based on the acute toxicity studies for freshwater fish, the relative t oxicity relationship is:
aldicarb>aldicarb sulf oxide> aldicarb sulfone.

Freshwater Fish, Chronic

Aldicarb

A freshwater fish early life-stage test using aldicarb (99% ai) has been conducted with the fathead minnow. The NOAEC was 78 ppb ai and the LOAEC was 156 ppb ai. The most sensitive endpoint was the surv ival of larvae-juv eniles after 30-days exposure (MRID 44598601 also known as BOWOAL07/4 (Q.H. Pickering and W.T. Gilliam 1982)). However, according to the acute freshwater fish data the bluegill sunfis h was the most sensitive freshwater fish tested
with a 96-h LC 50 of 52 ppb ai. This 96-h LC 50 of 52 ppb ai is lower than the NOAEC of 78 ppb ai for the fathead minnow, indicating that the blue gill is much more sensitive to aldicarb than the fathead minnow. Therefore, a screening level chr onic RQ for fish cannot be calculated using the
fathead minnow chronic NOAEC directly. However since both a supplemental acute (48-h
LC 50 = 8,860 ppb ai; Moore. et al . 1998) and acceptable chronic (NOAEC = 78 ppb ai) aldicarb value exist for fathead minnow, an acute-to-ch ronic ratio (ACR) can be calculated for this species and then used to determine an estimated NOAEC for th e bluegill sunfish.

The ACR for the fathead minnow of 114 is cal culated by dividing the fathead minnow 48-hr
EC 50 of 8,860 ppb ai by the fathead chronic NOAEC of 78 ppb ai. The 96-h LC 50 of 52 ppb ai for the bluegill sunfish is then divided by the ACR of 114 which results in an estimate of the chronic NOAEC for the bluegill sunfish of 0.46 ppb ai. A 48-h LC 50 value was used to calculate
the ACR rather than a 96-h LC 50 because none was available, th is potentially over estimates the ACR for fathead minnow. Additionally, a robust estimate of an ACR (i.e., geometric mean of ACRs for at least three fish sp ecies with at least one coldwate r and one warmwater species) for aldicarb could not be calculated because only one fish species, the fathead minnow, had both acute and chronic endpoints avai lable for determination of an ACR. While a more robust
estimate of the ACR is desirabl e, the use of the fathead minnow ACR is a reasonable estimate but may be either a slight over or underestimate of ACR for fish.

Chronic Toxicity Endpoints for Freshwater Fish

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Fathead minnow fish early life stage NOAEC = 78 ppb ai MRID 44598601 also known as BOWOAL07/4 (Q.H. Pickering and W.T. Gilliam 1982)65 Bluegill sunfish Estimated NOAEC = 0.46 ppb ai 96-h LC 50 for bluegill sunfish (52 ppb ai) divided by ACR (fathead minnow 48-h
EC 50 of 8860 ppb ai divided by NOAEC of 78 ppb ai)

Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute

Aldicarb

A Daphnia magna core study determined the 48-h EC 50 to be 410 ppb ai (Acc #096683, also
known as BOWOAL08 and MRID 107395 (Vilkas 1977), categorizing aldicarb as highly toxic to aquatic freshwater invertebrates on an acute basis. Because this test was conducted under static rather than flow-through cond itions, it is likely that this valu e reflects the contributions of a mixture of parent aldicarb and various degrad ates. A supplemental study from the literature reported the 48-h LC 50 of aldicarb to Daphnia magna, Aedes aegypti, Atermia sp., and Aedes taeniorhynchus as 75, 290, 5460, and 150 ppb ai respectivel y, in 48 hour static tests (Song et al.

, 1997). A supplemental study from open literature also concluded that aldicarb was very-highly
toxic to Daphnia magna with a reported 48-h EC 50 of 583 ppb (Moore. et al . 1998). This same study reported a 48-h EC 50 of 3990 ppb for Hyalella azteca (categorized as moderately toxic) and a reported 48-h EC 50 of 20 ppb for Chironomus tentans. A supplemental study obtained from open literature (Foran et al. 1985) determined the 48-h EC 50 of juvenile Daphnia laevis to be 65 ppb and 51 ppb for adult Daphnia laevis categorizing aldicarb as very highly toxic.

Because Moore et al. (1998) is classified as a supple mental study of high quality, the 48-h
Chironomus tentans EC 50 value of 20 ppb will be used in the risk characterization.

Aldicarb sulfoxide

Foran et al. 1985 also found that aldicarb sulfoxide is also very highly toxic to Daphnia laevis

, with a 48-h EC 50 of 57 ppb for juveniles and 43 ppb for adu lts. Thus, aldicarb sulfoxide toxicity to freshwater invertebrates appears to be similar in toxicity to aldicarb. A supplemental static acute toxicity test was performe d using the degradate aldicarb su lfoxide with the test species Daphnia magna . The 48-h EC 50 was 696 ppb, which is classified as highly toxic to daphnids (MRID 45592114).

Aldicarb sulfone

Based on a core study, the 48-h EC 50 for aldicarb sulfone is 280 ppb for Daphnia magna which is categorized as highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates on an acute basis [Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 1976) ]. Foran et al. (1985) also found that the toxi city of aldicarb sulfone to daphnids is in the highly t oxic category (juvenile 48-h EC 50 =556 ppb and adult 48-h EC 50 =369 ppb).

Based on the acute toxicity studies for freshwater invertebrates, th e relative toxicity relationship
is: aldicarb  aldicarb sulfoxide > aldicarb sulfone.66 Acute Toxicity Endpoints for Freshwater Invertebrates

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Daphnia magna 48-h EC 50 = 410 ppb Acc #096683, also known as
BOWOAL08 and MRID 107395 (Vilkas 1977),

Daphnia magna 48-hr LC 50 = 75 ppb Song et al. , 1997

Aedes aegypti 48-hr LC 50 = 290 ppb Song et al. , 1997

Atermia sp. 48-hr LC 50 = 5460 ppb Song et al. , 1997

Aedes taeniorhynchus 48-hr LC 50 = 150 ppb Song et al. , 1997

Daphnia magna 48-hr EC 50 = 583 ppb Moore. et al . 1998

Hyalella azteca 48-hour EC 50 = 3990 ppb Moore. et al . 1998

Chironomus tentans 48-hour EC 50 = 20 ppb Moore. et al . 1998

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) 48 hr EC 50 =65 ppb Foran et al. 1985

Daphnia laevis (adult) 48 hr EC 50 = 51 ppb Foran et al. 1985

Aldicarb sulfoxide

Daphnia magna 48-h EC 50 = 696 ppb MRID 45592114

Daphnia laevis (adult) 48 hr EC 50 = 43 ppb Foran et al. 1985

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) 48 hr EC 50 =57 ppb Foran et al. 1985

Aldicarb sulfone

Daphnia magna 48-h EC 50 = 280 ppb Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 1976)

Daphnia laevis (adult) 48-h EC 50 =369 ppb Foran et al. (1985)

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) 48-h EC 50 =556 ppb Foran et al. (1985)

Qualitative Studies

Midge, Chironomus riparius Symptoms of intoxica tion Kallander et al. 1997

Midge, Chironomus riparius 24-hr LC 50 (water only) = 9.9 ppb
24-hr LC 50 (spiked water) = 10.0 ppb,

24-hr LC 50 (spiked sediment) = 26.7 ppb Lydy et al. 1990

Gammarus italicus Goedm. 96-hr LC 50 = 420 ppb Pantani et al. 199767 Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Echinogammarus tibaldii
Pink. 96-hr LC 50 = 220 ppb Pantani et al. 1997

Midge Chironomus riparius 24 hr EC 50 value = 23 ppb Sturm and Hansen 1999

Daphnid Daphnia magna 24 hr EC 50 value = 227.6 ppb Sturm and Hansen 1999

Aedes taeniorhynchus 48-hr LC 50 = 150 ppb (hyperosmotic condition)

72-hr LC50=200 ppb ( isosmotic conditions) Song and Brown 1998

Artemia sp. 48-hr LC 50 = 5460 ppb ( hyperosmotic)

72-hr LC50=17250 ppb (isosmotic conditions ) Song and Brown 1998

Pond snail Lymnaea

acuminata 48-hr LC 50 = 20000 ppb Singh and Agarwal 1981

Apple snail Pila globosa
Swainson 48-hour LC 50 value could not
be determined Singh and Agarwal 1981

Midge Chironomus riparius None Fisher et al. 1993

Midge Chironomus riparius 24-hour LC 50 values ranged from 17-28 ppb at pH 4-8 Suorsa and Fisher 1986

Aldicarb sulfoxide

Daphnia magna EC 50 = 696 ppb MRID 45592114

Daphnia laevis (adult) 48 hr EC 50 = 43 ppb Foran et al. 1985

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) 48 hr EC 50 =57 ppb Foran et al. 1985

Aldicarb sulfone

Daphnia magna EC 50 = 280 ppb Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 1976)

Daphnia laevis (adult) EC 50 =369 ppb Foran et al. (1985)

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) EC 50 =556 ppb Foran et al. (1985)

Freshwater Invertebrate Qualitative Studies Using the database ECOTOX to identify addition al data from the open literature, several supplemental studies were identified that can be used qualitatively to discuss the effects of
aldicarb on freshwater invertebra tes. These studies were not a ppropriate for quantitative use in calculation of risk quotients (see Appendi x L for more detailed explanations).68 A one day test identified aldicarb as very high ly toxic to the midge and daphnid on an acute toxicity basis under static conditions. The 24-h EC 50 value was reported to be 23 ppb a.i. for the midge and 227.6 ppb a.i. for the daphnid (Sturm and Hansen 1999).

Several studies examined the effects of aldicarb to freshwater invertebrates and the effects of pulse dosing, pH, and different modes of expos ure. In a pulsed exposure test, Kallander et al

. (1996) studied midges (Chironomus riparus) exposed to aldicarb under static conditions. Midges exposed to aldicarb for two, pulsed 1-hour periods with a recovery period in clean water for 6 or more hours showed significantly fewer symptoms of intoxicatio n than those exposed continuously for 2 hours. This indicates that co ntinuous exposure to aldicarb from runoff events with no recovery time would exacerbate the symptoms of intoxication for freshwater
invertebrates.

The 24 hour acute toxicity of aldicarb to Chironomus riparus was studied under st atic conditions at pH 4, 6, and 8 (Suorsa and Fisher 1986). The 24-h LC 50 values ranged from 17-28 ppb for aldicarb at pH 4-8. Toxicity of aldicarb to midges did not differ signifi cantly as a function of pH.

A 24 hour static study by Lydy et al (1990) evaluated three modes of exposure of aldicarb to Chironomus riparius : treated water only with no sediment (water only); treated water with untreated sediment (spiked water); and treated sedi ment with untreated water (spiked sediment). The reported 24-h LC 50 for the water only, spiked water, an d spiked sediment treatments were 9.9, 10.0 and 26.7 ppb respectively, which classifies aldicarb as very highly toxic to C. riparius on an acute toxicity basis for all three routes of exposure. In addition, these tests indicate that the water exposure pathways produce more sensitiv e endpoints than sedime nt exposure. This affirms the use of acute aquatic toxicity tests usin g aldicarb for freshwater invertebrates to be the most sensitive route of exposure.

Fisher et al. 1993 studied the toxi city of aldicarb to the midge w ith and without sediment. Five molecular descriptors (molecular volume, Henr y’s law constant, n-octanol/water partition coefficient, molecular connectivity, and linear solv ation energy) were used in regression analysis as potential predictors of pestic ide activity. Quantitative structure activity relationships indicate sediment sorption plays a large role in the ul timate toxicity of aldi carb to the midge.

Several studies were identified that deal with sp ecies not normally tested in registrant submitted
studies. These studies classified al dicarb in a range of slightly t oxic to highly toxic. The 96-hr acute toxicity of aldicarb to Gammarus italicus Goedm and Echinogammarus tibaldii Pink was
studied under static conditions (Pantani et al . 1997). The 96-h LC 50 value was determined to be 420 ppb a.i. and 220 ppb a.i., respectively, which categor izes aldicarb as highl y toxic on an acute toxicity basis.

The 240-hr acute toxicity of aldicarb to the pond snail Lymnaea acuminata and the apple snail Pila globosa Swainson was studied under static conditi ons (Singh and Agarwal 1981). Paralysis was observed in the test organisms within 24 hours of exposure even though the animals remained alive for varying lengths of time; no mortality was observed in the control group. The
48-h LC 50 value was 20000 ppb a.i., which categori zes aldicarb as slightly toxic to L. acuminata on an acute toxicity basis. The 48-h LC 50 value could not be determined for the apple snail within the range of doses tested. The LC 50 values from 72 hours to 240 hours ranged from69 210000-78000 ppb, which categorizes aldicarb as pract ically non-toxic to slightly toxic to P. globosa on an acute to subchr onic toxicity basis.

The 48-h hyperosmotic and 72-hour isosmotic acut e toxicities of aldica rb to the mosquito Aedes taeniorhynchus and brine shrimp Artemia sp. were studied under stat ic conditions (Song and Brown 1997). Mosquito and nauplii larvae were exposed to the test material at two different salinities, hyperosmotic and isosmotic. Under hyperosmotic conditions, the reported Aedes 48-
hour LC 50 was 150 ppb a.i and the Artemia 48-hour LC 50 was 5460 ppb a.i. Aldicarb is thus, classified as highly toxic to Aedes and moderately toxic to Artemia sp. Under isosmotic conditions, the reported 72-hour LC50 was 200 ppb a.i. for Aedes (highly toxic) and the 72-hour LC50 was 17250 ppb a.i. for Artemia ( slightly toxic)

.

Freshwater Invertebrate, Chronic

Aldicarb

The chronic risk to freshwater invertebrates is based on the estuarine/marine chronic study using Mysidopsis bahia . The reason for using this endpoint is based on the memorandum dated December 14, 1993, from A. Maciorowski, EFED to P. Poli, SRRD (D196663): “EEB has previously received and reviewed a valid Mysid sh rimp chronic toxicity study that resulted in a calculated MATC of 1-1.5 ppb. Since the acute data indicates that the Mysid shrimp is more
sensitive to aldicarb than Daphnia magna (Mysid shrimp LC 50 = 16 ppb, Daphnia magna LC 50 = 410.7 ppb) and EEB does have valid Mysid shrimp ch ronic toxicity data, EEB is willing to waive the requirement for the Guideline 72-4(b) Freshwat er Invertebrate Life Cycle Study. However, as a result all aquatic risk assessments utilizing inve rtebrate chronic toxicity data will be based on the Mysid shrimp data.” The mysid shrimp NOAEC is 1.0 ppb.

A supplemental chronic toxicity study was submitte d that evaluated the eff ect of aldicarb (99.9% a.i.) on Daphnia magna . An EC 50 of 90 ppb, NOAEC of 20 ppb, and LOAEC of 60 ppb were reported for mortality and immobilization. An EC 50 with a range of 190 to 570 ppb, NOAEC of 190 ppb and LOAEC greater than 190 ppb were repor ted for reproductive e ffects. The most sensitive endpoint was reproduc tive effects (MRID 45592112). This study is classified as supplemental and is not upgr adeable to core due to the study’s deviations.

Chronic Toxicity Endpoints for Freshwater Invertebrates

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Daphnia magna NOAEC = 20 ppb MRID 4559211270 Toxicity to Estuarine and Marine Animals

Estuarine and Marine Fish, Acute

Aldicarb

Based on results from the preferred te st species, sheepshead minnow, 96-h LC 50 values range from 41 to 170 ppb. Therefore, aldicarb is ca tegorized very highly to highly toxic to
estuarine/marine fish on an acute basis. The most sensitive estuarine/marine fish species tested was the sheepshead minnow with a 96-h LC 50 of 41 ppb [MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)]. A supplemental study obtained from open literatu re (Landau and Tucker 1984) found a similar magnitude value for a snook (Centropomus undecimalis) embryo/larva bioassays with a 36-hr
LC 50 of 40 ppb. After 96-hr of exposur e the snook may have a lower LC 50 ; therefore, the snook may be more sensitive than the sheepshead minnow.

Acute Toxicity Endpoints for Estuarine and Marine Fish

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Sheepshead minnow 96-h LC 50 = 41 ppb MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)

Snook (Centropomus undecimalis) 36-h LC 50 = 40 ppb Landau and Tucker 1984

Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodin variegates ) 96-h LC 50 = 170 ppb MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)

Estuarine and Marine Fish, Chronic

Aldicarb

A chronic estuarine/marine fish early life-stage test using aldi carb (99% ai) has been conducted with the sheepshead minnow. The NOAEC wa s 50 ppb and the LOAEC was 88 ppb. The most sensitive endpoint was growth based on the mean standard length [MRID 00066341 (U.S. EPA 1981b)]. The lowest chronic endpoint value available for sheepsh ead minnow is higher than the lowest acute endpoint value for sheepshead minnow. Therefore, it not appr opriate to screen for
chronic risks to estuarin e/marine fish with this value. Ho wever, since there is an ACR of 114 available for fish (freshwater fathead minnow AC R, see the Freshwater Fish, Chronic Aldicarb section above) this value wa s used to estimate a chronic NOAEC using the acute 96-h LC 50 for sheepshead minnow from MRID 40228401.

The estimated chronic NOAEC for the sheepshead minnow is 0.36 ppb and is calculated by dividing the 96-h LC 50 of 41 ppb for the sheepshead minnow by the ACR for fathead minnow of
114. As discussed in the Freshwater Fis h, Chronic Aldicarb section above a 48-h LC 50 value was
used to calculate the A CR rather than a 96-h LC 50 because none was available, this potentially
over estimates the ACR for fathead minnow. A dditionally, a robust estimate of an ACR (i.e.,71 geometric mean of ACRs for at least three fi sh species with at least one coldwater, one warmwater and one saltwater specie s) for aldicarb could not be calculated because only one fish species, the fathead minnow, had both acute a nd chronic acceptable endpoints available for
determination of an ACR. While a more robust estimate of the A CR is desirable, the use of the
fathead minnow ACR is a reasonable estimate but may be either a slight over or underestimate of
ACR for fish.

Chronic Toxicity Endpoints for Estuarine and Marine Fish

Species Endpoint (NOAEC) MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Sheepshead minnow Early life stage NOAEC = 50 ppb MRID 00066341 (U.S. EPA 1981b)

Sheepshead minnow Estimated NOAEC = 0.36 ppb 96-h LC 50 for sheepshead minnow (41 ppb ai) divided by ACR (fathead minnow 48-
h EC 50 of 8860 ppb ai divided by NOAEC of 78 ppb ai)

Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates, Acute

Aldicarb

Based on results from the preferred test species, pink shrimp and Eastern oyster, following test guidelines, the toxicity values fall in the range of 12 to 8800 ppb. Therefore, aldicarb is categorized as very highly to moderately toxi c to estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute
basis. The 48-h EC 50 for the Eastern oyster is reported as 8800 ppb. Therefore, the most
sensitive estuarine/marine invertebrate tested was the pink shrimp, with a 96-h LC 50 of 12 ppb [MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)].

Acute Toxicity Endpoints for Estu arine and Marine Invertebrates

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Eastern oyster 48-h EC 50 = 8800 ppb MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)

Pink shrimp 96-h LC 50 = 12 ppb MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)72 Estuarine and Marine Invertebrate, Chronic

Aldicarb

A chronic estuarine/marine invertebrate full lif e-cycle test using aldicarb (99% ai) has been conducted with the mysid shrimp. The NOAEC was 1 ppb and the LOAEC was 1.5 ppb. The most sensitive endpoint was average number of offspri ng [MRID 00066341(U.S. EPA 1981b)].

Chronic Toxicity Endpoints for Estu arine and Marine Invertebrates

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Mysid shrimp Full life cycle NOAEC = 1 ppb MRID 00066341

Toxicity to Aquatic Plants

Aldicarb

According to CFR 40 Part 158.540, aquatic plant testing is generally not required for nonherbicides unless there is evidence of potential phytotoxicity at use rate s from other lines of evidence. At this time, EFED has one study conducted on the marine diatom, Skeletonema

costatum (MRID 40228401) and a study on Duckweed (MRID 47904402). The EC 50 is >50 ppm for the diatom and >88.7 ppm for duckweed.

Toxicity Endpoints for Aquatic Plants

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Marine diatom, Skeletonema

costatum EC 50 > 50 ppm MRID 40228401

Duckweed, Lemna gibba EC50 >88.7 ppm MRID 47904402

Summary of review of MRID 47904402

In a 7 day acute toxicity study, Duckweed ( Lemna gibba; freshwater floating aquatic vascular plants) were exposed to Aldicarb Technical at nominal concen trations of 0 (negative control), 2.56, 6.40, 16.0, 40.0, and 100 mg ai/L under stat ic renewal conditions. Measured concentrations were <0.20 (<LOQ, control), 2.17, 5.50, 14.3, 35.9, and 88.7 mg ai/L.

The % growth inhibition of frond number in the treatment groups as compared to the control ranged from 4 to 41%. For biomass based on fr ond number, inhibitions ra nged from 3 to 38%. For dry weight, inhibitions ranged from 5 to 46%. There were no compound related phytotoxic effects. The NOAEC for this study was 5.50 mg a.i./L, based on effects to frond number, biomass and dry weight at 14.3 mg a.i./L. For al l endpoints that were in cluded in this study ( i.e., frond number, dry weight and grow th rate), <50% effects were observed, resulting in an EC5073 value >88.7 mg ai/L ( i.e., the highest test concentration). Since a dose-response relationship was observed in this test and the highest test c oncentrations resulted in almost 50% effects, extrapolated EC50 values were calculated by the reviewer. The lowest extrapolated EC50 was 110 (95% confidence interv al: 90-130; slope = 1.74+/- 0.251) based on effects to dry weight. Although an EC50 value was not bound by the concentra tions used in this test and the highest test concentration was not 100 mg a.i./L, the ex trapolated EC50 value fo r dry weight and the available NOAECs are sufficient to establish endpoi nts from this study. This toxicity study is considered scientifically sound a nd classified acceptable. This study may be used to satisfy the guideline requirement for an a quatic plant toxicity study using Lemna sp.